Liberals' Descent into Moral Nihilism

[Colleen Thomas]

Hmmmm.

I think Harper overstates his case and oversimplifies in both cases of social conservatism and economic conservatism. His division, and the goals he assigns to each, seem to me, to be tailored to the political coalition he is trying to forge.

Firstly. I don't need the big words or accusations to disagree with liberals. I don't feel the need to lable you nihlists, for me, for the longest time, just calling you liberals was insult enough While that is obviously very tongue in cheek, the fact is that for me, I have never felt a need to villify my opposites. I am conservative, you are liberal, we are going to disagree on many things.

In Mr Harper's paradigm I am pretty much in the middle, shading towards economic conservative. I favor private enterprise, but knowing human nature I believe some regulation is not only prudent, but is in fact neccessary. I am not in favor of free trade, at least not along the NAFTA lines. I believe totally in religious toleration, a person's religious beliefs are deeply private and personal things, no one should ever feel less than total freedom to choose what they believe without fearing secular repercusssion. Limited government, damned right. The rule of law, ditto. From his interpretation of Burke I value traditions, I like an ordered society and I believe in personal restraint, but I am staunchly opposed to enforcing that restraint with law & sanction, especially if you are trying to impose moral restraint.

Basically, my brand of conservatism crowds the line of moderate libertarianism. I want a smaller government. I want it out of my life as much as possible. I don't want the government in the bussiness of morality, except where certain immoral acts cross the line and become illegal. I want ethical government, and restrained, measured and reasoned response from that government. I want fiscally responsible government.

Fundamentally, I think Mr. harper misses the point in the lable conservative and liberal. There exists, that staus quo. A liberal, will demand wholesale change to the status quo, to fix a boundless number of ills. A conservative will favor the status quo, with admission that small changes might be neccessary.

To me, your brand of conservatism is linked to how much change you are comfortable with in the status quo, and what bounds you place on the legitimate role of govenment in effecting that change.

So you see, to me, Neo-cons are worse than many moderate liberals. They embrace wholesale change to the status quo, with a vision of a better world through expanded government. They are conservative only because they embrace Mr. Harper's interpretation of Burke.

Within my conservatism there is also a healthy streak of skepticism and individual decisions on some issues that are not bounded by my overall conservative view. It is conservatism without dogma and a more reasoned, objective approach to problems. It's old school, it's out of favor and as the country becomes ever more polarized, it's becoming extinct.

-Colly

 

[rgraham666]

Good one, Colleen.

I got very peeved at Mr. Harper's hijacking of Burke. I think the following quote for Burke shows how far apart Harper and Burke actually are.

Freedom is not solitary, unconnected individual, selfish Liberty As if every Man was to regulate the whole of the Conduct by his own will. The Liberty I mean is social freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint… this kind of Liberty is indeed but another name for Justice…but whenever a seperation is made between Liberty and Justice, neither is, in my opinion, safe.

For most of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century, Burke was considered a radical and a reformer. He fought a long battle against slavery, he sided with the American revolutionaries, he fought against corruption.

To use Burke to back aristocratic fantasies as Mr. Harper has, shows how much history we've forgotten.

 

[shereads]

Within my conservatism there is also a healthy streak of skepticism and individual decisions on some issues that are not bounded by my overall conservative view. It is conservatism without dogma and a more reasoned, objective approach to problems. It's old school, it's out of favor and as the country becomes ever more polarized, it's becoming extinct.

-Colly

You're a Democrat.

Oops. Sorry, I slipped.



What I mean to say was this: the polarization feeds itself. As each side is demonized by the other, it kicks back harder and the power of the kick sends the kicker flying backwards, until everybody's farther apart. The question is, why the polarization? I'm not sure why moderate conservatives think that liberals have become more liberal, but I know that in my dad, whose extreme right-wing attitudes had always been directed at the Communists, I could see him looking for new places to direct all that anger at the end of the Cold War. Presto, there was Hillary Clinton! And Jesse Jackson, his old stand-by nemesis. After the fall of the Soviet Union, my dad didn't celebrate as you might have expected. He was at loose ends, ideologically. He had never been what you would call a moderate, but he had also never expressed the racism and anti-feminist views of other Southern men I knew - the fathers of my school friends. He began to focus on every change from the status quo with the same anger he had once directed at the Russians. He never let any of those bigoted ideas enter into his relationships with other human beings; it was always theoretical, a topic for conversations with his buddies and for dinner-table talk that always turned into battles, until we learned to just nod and say, "That's one way to look at it."



I'm not sure whether the end of the Cold War reengergized conservatism or just left men of my dad's generation feeling lost without a cause. But I do agree with something I read last year: that the technology that now guides the process of "gerrymandering" has made it so scientific, that the party in power in each state can almost guarantee the reelection of its Congressional incumbents through redistricting. The author of this article proposed that this highly targeted gerrymandering leads to polarization because the greatest danger an incumbent congressman faces now is a contest within his own party. And these contests come about most often from opponents who are more - not less - extreme in their ideology.

It makes sense, if you think about what changes have taken place in the last 20 years or so.

The end of the cold war is one: for liberals, it meant we could afford to spend less on defense and address other needs with a fraction of that money, because we were, after all, the only remaining superpower. The military-industrial complex fought back with a vengeance, but until 9/11 the "middle" didn't have an enemy to fear and didn't object very strongly to looking for some efficiencies in the one part of the U.S. budget that dwarfs all the others.

The other thing that's changed is technology. Gerrymandering had always required some guesswork and a bit of a gamble. It no longer does. Every voter registered to one party or the other is known right down to his or her 10-digit zipcode, and all the party in power has to do is lump those areas together in a certain way, and they virtually assure the election of their man. Technology has also changed the issues themselves. When NAFTA was passed, most white-collar workers either welcomed it as something that would bring down the prices of imported goods, or if we worried about it, we shrugged it off as something that would never affect white-collar jobs. A few years later, its evident that virtually any job can be outsourced except cleaning toilets. You can hire a toilet-cleaning consultant from overseas, but somebody has to be there to do the actual scrubbing. Maybe the Japanese will invent a toilet-cleaning robot that can be operated from a remote location, and then America's cleaning ladies will be jobless.

(Before someone pipes up about the improved employment picture, it's worth noting that with long-term unemployment (two years or more) at an all-time high, people who have become discouraged and stopped looking for full-time work are no longer counted in the unemployment figures. It's also worth noting that a higher proportion of the newly created jobs are at the minimum-wage, which leaves a family of four at near-poverty level. Companies that can outsource are doing so - even medical testing and X-ray reading are being done overseas, by labs and technicians who don't have to meet any of the licensing requirements of the U.S.)

 

[rgraham666]

Shereads? In my opinion, hatred is an addiction.

And what a wonderful one too! All that adrenaline and endorphins coursing through your body! It's a real fucking rush, man!

So like an alcoholic who can't by his booze at a particular location any more, the addict simply finds another source somewhere else.

But it is an addiction. You need your hit every day and you need bigger hits to get the same high.

I know. I was addicted to hatred's close cousin, anger for a very long time.

 

[shereads]

I know. I was addicted to hatred's close cousin, anger for a very long time.

Now you're starting to piss me off.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Shereads? In my opinion, hatred is an addiction.

And what a wonderful one too! All that adrenaline and endorphins coursing through your body! It's a real fucking rush, man!

So like an alcoholic who can't by his booze at a particular location any more, the addict simply finds another source somewhere else.

But it is an addiction. You need your hit every day and you need bigger hits to get the same high.

I know. I was addicted to hatred's close cousin, anger for a very long time.

How dare you say that?!?
HOW DARE YOU?!?!? Why you...I...I...I HATE YOU!

Ah, good hit man. It burns so good. What a rush.

What? I can stop anytime I want you know. I just take hatred for my...uh..asthma that's it. Yeah, asthma. And my inhaler is not really secretly filled with heroin.

*
In all honesty, I've never believed in getting addicted to anything other than caffeine. Hatred, heroin, and Fox News are all really stupid things to put in control of your life.

Besides, my caffeine is a jealous mistress. Yes, aren't you baby? Yes, you are.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

This is a paraphrase of a quote I have heard attributed to Chruchill.

If you are under 20 and a conservative you have no heart
If you are over 30 and a liberal you have no brain.

As people grow older, more of their security becomes bound up in the status quo. Radical change becomes less and less appealing as more and more of your life becomes bound up in what exists now. Children, the job, retierment, pension, etc. All of your plans for these things are forged in the status quo, and as you become older changes to the status quo are seen as threats to them. By and large, people grow towards conservatism as they get older.

The portion of the general population that is now in the "older" bracket is expanding and I think a shift towards conservatism is to be expected. This contry's attitudes towards nearly everything operates on a kind of pendulum that swings from very liberal (the 60's, roaring 20's) to very conservative (the 50's, 80's). While it does not explain the polarization we are seeing very well, it does explain the shift towards conservatism and the rise of the GOP to its current power.

I believe the current polarization we see is fueled by intolerance. The religious right holds far too much sway with the GOP, and they are fanatical in their zeal, which makes them intolerant in the extreme. On the Democrat's side, a steady erosion of suport by moderte democrats has left the party in the hands of the more radical elements. They too are intolerant and extreme.

This election is showing the smallest % of undecided voters in the history of modern polling. The arguments here in the forums are a microcosm of that, with hardly anyone taking a centrist or undecided stance. This is an election that is nearly 6 months away and everyone already knows who they are voting for.

Being liberal or conservative has really taken a back seat to being a republican or a democrat this time around. Neither candidate is an outstanding example of liberal or conservative values, but each is a solid example of a Republican or Democrat.

GWB is a hawk. Being a hawk is a hall mark of neither true conservatism or true liberalism. It is a hallmark of being a Republican. Similarly John Kerry is anti-military. That is not a liberal or conservative value, but it is a Democratic party trademark.

Are our politicians products of the polarization? Or are they movers in creating that polarization? At this point, I honestly can't tell.

-Colly

 

[Xelebes]

Ah yes Stephen Harper - there are a few policies that I like (leaving social programs to the provinces because that is actually the provincial jurisdiction. There a re a few minor points that I agree with. Others... well, just no.

However, this essay makes me pissed at him. Hate-mongerings gets the no vote from me.

 

[Blarneystoned]

Colleen sounds Libertarian

Shereads the Democrats lost their party when they stopped their fight for the working man and took union money...they stopped fighting for the poor when the conservation corp ended...the problem with the democratic party now is that it tries to appease and incorporate everyone into its folds....appeasing everyone get you no where because no one agrees on anything one way or the other because there are too many views in competition


Blarneystoned

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

This is a paraphrase of a quote I have heard attributed to Chruchill.

If you are under 20 and a conservative you have no heart
If you are over 30 and a liberal you have no brain.

As people grow older, more of their security becomes bound up in the status quo. Radical change becomes less and less appealing as more and more of your life becomes bound up in what exists now. Children, the job, retierment, pension, etc. All of your plans for these things are forged in the status quo, and as you become older changes to the status quo are seen as threats to them. By and large, people grow towards conservatism as they get older.

The portion of the general population that is now in the "older" bracket is expanding and I think a shift towards conservatism is to be expected. This contry's attitudes towards nearly everything operates on a kind of pendulum that swings from very liberal (the 60's, roaring 20's) to very conservative (the 50's, 80's). While it does not explain the polarization we are seeing very well, it does explain the shift towards conservatism and the rise of the GOP to its current power.

I believe the current polarization we see is fueled by intolerance. The religious right holds far too much sway with the GOP, and they are fanatical in their zeal, which makes them intolerant in the extreme. On the Democrat's side, a steady erosion of suport by moderte democrats has left the party in the hands of the more radical elements. They too are intolerant and extreme.

This election is showing the smallest % of undecided voters in the history of modern polling. The arguments here in the forums are a microcosm of that, with hardly anyone taking a centrist or undecided stance. This is an election that is nearly 6 months away and everyone already knows who they are voting for.

Being liberal or conservative has really taken a back seat to being a republican or a democrat this time around. Neither candidate is an outstanding example of liberal or conservative values, but each is a solid example of a Republican or Democrat.

GWB is a hawk. Being a hawk is a hall mark of neither true conservatism or true liberalism. It is a hallmark of being a Republican. Similarly John Kerry is anti-military. That is not a liberal or conservative value, but it is a Democratic party trademark.

Are our politicians products of the polarization? Or are they movers in creating that polarization? At this point, I honestly can't tell.

-Colly

I agree with most you say here with a few exceptions. It may just be my youth speaking but I don't see the ultra-liberalism. With the exception of gay rights, the democrats have sort of fallen off the leftist truck. They are pro-NAFTA, none even talk about scoialized medicine coming here, Freeing Mumia and legalized pot will never even make it into a democratic bill, and so on. I'd say more leftists are being vocal these days then in the past. Many of the Gen Y (I'm not calling them Gen Next, Pepsi can suck my dick if it thinks it can name a generation) leftists are coming out of their apathy and standing with the liberals against Bush. You can see that in that the only strong opinion of the left this year so far is "Kerry is not Bush". Also, I don't believe that someone who voted for both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and whose only disagreement on military budget is how it gets spent and how much goes to the troops is anti-military but I will admit that is a democratic point. It's a leftist point and a reaction to the military overspending of the Cold War that's just not neccesary in a guerilla warfare with terrorists world.

I think with the neoconservatives getting more political clout, you're going to see more vocal leftists (non-liberals), but you're going to see very few of their propositions actually make it into congress. Currently Bush and the religious right are Christmas shopping as long as they control all three branches. Is this right? I dunno. Is it polarizing? Hell yes. Is it getting a lot of leftists mobilized? Oh Hell yeah.

So in conclusion yeah. It's a polarization and its partly cyclical. The only problem is that the extremists are taking advantage of the pendulum swings and eventually if they keep doing that the leftists are going to completely take over the democratic party and then all that will be left will be a slow bile contest until we all wise up and have a four party system (Leftist Whackos, Social Liberals, Economic Conservatives (Libertarians), Religious Right Whackos).

 

[Blarneystoned]

Some good points Luci

But historically 3 and 4 party systems are doomed to fail. We have been trying to ride the 3 wheeled tricycle for years...but keep chopping a wheel off to ride faster when elections come up

Blarneystoned

 

[Pure]

CT: John Kerry is anti-military.

I know of no evidence for this. (I suspect he's of the JFK stripe, in that matter.)

It's a pure Rove canard.

CT:it[anti military] is a Democratic party trademark.

Again, pure canard. FDR? JFK or Johnson (surely quintessential Democrats)

Senate Armed Services committee has always had Democrats concerned with at strong, effective military.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: Some good points Luci

But historically 3 and 4 party systems are doomed to fail. We have been trying to ride the 3 wheeled tricycle for years...but keep chopping a wheel off to ride faster when elections come up

Blarneystoned

They've been working in Europe and a lot of other places. PR systems have historically worked as well as two party systems. Besides it would be nice if the people in the middle could have a choice not to align themselves of the extremist forces. The whacko fringes could scream and villify each other and the two moderate parties could have sane debates and get some real coalition work done that doesn't satisfy only one extremist faction when the Christmas party rolls around.

But it will never be adopted here. Americans have a very protective belief in a two party system and one with set ideologies. That's why there are disappointed staunch economic conservatives who are watching the liberally economic Bush with a mask of horror but still know they are going to vote for him. No one wants to risk setting on their own. Though I encourage the libertarian party to try as well as the green party. One day, who knows. Americans may get tired of bile and two-cola lesser-of-two-evils style voting and act. Stranger things have happened.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree with most you say here with a few exceptions. It may just be my youth speaking but I don't see the ultra-liberalism. With the exception of gay rights, the democrats have sort of fallen off the leftist truck. They are pro-NAFTA, none even talk about scoialized medicine coming here, Freeing Mumia and legalized pot will never even make it into a democratic bill, and so on. I'd say more leftists are being vocal these days then in the past. Many of the Gen Y (I'm not calling them Gen Next, Pepsi can suck my dick if it thinks it can name a generation) leftists are coming out of their apathy and standing with the liberals against Bush. You can see that in that the only strong opinion of the left this year so far is "Kerry is not Bush". Also, I don't believe that someone who voted for both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and whose only disagreement on military budget is how it gets spent and how much goes to the troops is anti-military but I will admit that is a democratic point. It's a leftist point and a reaction to the military overspending of the Cold War that's just not neccesary in a guerilla warfare with terrorists world.

I think with the neoconservatives getting more political clout, you're going to see more vocal leftists (non-liberals), but you're going to see very few of their propositions actually make it into congress. Currently Bush and the religious right are Christmas shopping as long as they control all three branches. Is this right? I dunno. Is it polarizing? Hell yes. Is it getting a lot of leftists mobilized? Oh Hell yeah.

So in conclusion yeah. It's a polarization and its partly cyclical. The only problem is that the extremists are taking advantage of the pendulum swings and eventually if they keep doing that the leftists are going to completely take over the democratic party and then all that will be left will be a slow bile contest until we all wise up and have a four party system (Leftist Whackos, Social Liberals, Economic Conservatives (Libertarians), Religious Right Whackos).

Ann Coulter made an observation, which, in her own way I found to be telling. She rhetorically asked the Democratic party why all the partiotic democrats in the middle of the country weren't voting, then answered herself by saying, whoops, they are, but they are all republicans now.

The moderates from both parties have been pretty effectively silenced. With rare exceptions like John McCain, politicians are toeing the line. No one has a feel for the way the political winds are blowing like a politician and right now, the voice of reason & moderation is likely to get you exiled, be you democrat or republican.

A lot of moderate democrats have switched parties as they have grown older. They are still moderates, but vote republican now. A large percentage of the contry's youth don't vote. I think that may be one of the most damaging things the democratic party is facing. They are hemmoraging supporters who are reaching an age where they are becoming more conservative in their view point and the is no fresh infusion of idealistic kids replacing them.

I have seen no age demograpic breakdown by party, but it would be intresting.

-Colly

 

[Blarneystoned]

I liken it to a sports match Luci

Somebody has to referee...that is what the extremists do...the other two teams play ball. European systems are functional...but our system works for us. I think the Europeans are still having to deal with ancient methods and systems still in place..so they come up with candidates that appease all parties. There is still a lot of old money and old ways to navigate around in most European countries and they generally have smaller populations to draw from for support...split the vote 4 ways and your constituents are rather small..so you appease the other parties to win

Blarneystoned

 

[Colleen Thomas]

CT: John Kerry is anti-military.

I know of no evidence for this. (I suspect he's of the JFK stripe, in that matter.)

It's a pure Rove canard.

CT:it[anti military] is a Democratic party trademark.

Again, pure canard. FDR? JFK or Johnson (surely quintessential Democrats)

Senate Armed Services committee has always had Democrats concerned with at strong, effective military.

I have read John Kerry's speech to congress Pure. I don't need Carl Rove or anyone else to interpret for me.

The democratic party is anti military. They consistantly vote to lower defense spending and raise social spending. It's a part of their creedo. Has been since as long as I have been cognizant of politics and is the centerpiece of every democrat's emphasis on domestic issues over Foerign relations that I can remember. Again, I don't need Rove to interpret for me.

The point was not to start an argument over Kerry or Bush, it was that each is a good example of their party, while netiher is a very good example of liberal or conservative values. If you refuse to accept Kerry being anti military or being anti military as a democratic party tradmeark then obivously the point falls down.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Ann Coulter made an observation, which, in her own way I found to be telling. She rhetorically asked the Democratic party why all the partiotic democrats in the middle of the country weren't voting, then answered herself by saying, whoops, they are, but they are all republicans now.

The moderates from both parties have been pretty effectively silenced. With rare exceptions like John McCain, politicians are toeing the line. No one has a feel for the way the political winds are blowing like a politician and right now, the voice of reason & moderation is likely to get you exiled, be you democrat or republican.

A lot of moderate democrats have switched parties as they have grown older. They are still moderates, but vote republican now. A large percentage of the contry's youth don't vote. I think that may be one of the most damaging things the democratic party is facing. They are hemmoraging supporters who are reaching an age where they are becoming more conservative in their view point and the is no fresh infusion of idealistic kids replacing them.

I have seen no age demograpic breakdown by party, but it would be intresting.

-Colly

Hmmm, I think you would see an interesting effect with the democrats trying to follow their boomer constituency (which was the group that last gave them power) and doing it on the backs of Gens X and Y. If you look at the small number of X and Y political cartoonists, they are very sarcastically biting and disillusioned with the parties. Republicans for being the party of the old and status quo and the democrats for trying to be.

Democrats are in a jam because if people wanted to be republicans, they'd vote republican like they've been doing and the democrats have retained their image of being a bunch of fresh faced kids vs the Man when they no longer represent that ideal. That's why the leftists have been getting increasingly agitated. The libertarians share more in social planning with the liberals but fear the word liberal and its economic conotations and so link up with religious right liberal economists that treat them with disdain. It's a tough deal and the democrats struggling internally with trying to look moderate while a revolution of angry young leftists is attacking from the inside are not helping much.

Overall, it's a mess and with the youth being categorically screwed while everyone follows the boomers and the republican extremists profit from the age boon, it's not looking to be better anytime soon. Also, what's wrong with lowering military spending or at the very least moving it over to things that help guerilla warfare like enough bullets, body armor, and the such instead of more worthless but cool looking bombs and unscientific missile defense shields? (It's an honest question)

Blarney, it would be nice if our country appeased the opposition sometimes. Instead we polarize ourselves into an all-or-nothing game. We should have to trade vote for vote what we get. That way tax cuts are tempered with gay rights. Wars are tempered with increased education budget, socialized medicine with prayer in schools, etc.

 

[rgraham666]

People keep forgetting that democracy is not a system of winning and losing, but a system of balance.

It is, in it's ideal form, the only system with feedback built in so that changes in course may be made when necessary. Otherwise it's just a filigree over an authouritarian system.

The biggest problem with democracy is that it requires constant work on the part of it's citizens and demands personal responsibility from them. Since, too often, we're busy making money or spending it, democracy becomes an unwelcome burden.

And as far as responsibility goes, many of us see no reason to be since few of the Big Guys are.

When fish goes rotten, the head stinks first.

 

[Blarneystoned]

It's a thought

but I think there may have to come up with new parties..We have always changed according to need...problem is there is too much money on both party lines to change much.....I mean if we were all Federalist and anti Federalists again things would be simple...but now people look to the governments-- federal, state and local-- to give them marriage licenses, tax breaks, fix the highway potholes, fight their wars, control their children from watching R rated movies, give them money because they need some, find them a job,a drivers license, money when they turn old and retire, a social security number, help when they get sick, bring them cheap vegetables to buy at the grocery store, help them when their crops fail, govern their bad habits like drinking and smoking, give them millions of dollars when they get cancer or a bad liver, moderate the cable TV industry, give them a better remote control, and a cell phone, and tie their shoes for them...

Mommy can I have some lunch money....that is not what government was for in the first place...that may be our core issue...What ever happened to the dream of finding work and raising a family...still there somewhere...but tainted with rhettoric and red tape and it just gets worse....

Perhaps the loss of the old guard will spark the creation of two new parties....

Blarneystoned

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Re: It's a thought

but I think there may have to come up with new parties..We have always changed according to need...problem is there is too much money on both party lines to change much.....I mean if we were all Federalist and anti Federalists again things would be simple...but now people look to the governments-- federal, state and local-- to give them marriage licenses, tax breaks, fix the highway potholes, fight their wars, control their children from watching R rated movies, give them money because they need some, find them a job,a drivers license, money when they turn old and retire, a social security number, help when they get sick, bring them cheap vegetables to buy at the grocery store, help them when their crops fail, govern their bad habits like drinking and smoking, give them millions of dollars when they get cancer or a bad liver, moderate the cable TV industry, give them a better remote control, and a cell phone, and tie their shoes for them...

Mommy can I have some lunch money....that is not what government was for in the first place...that may be our core issue...What ever happened to the dream of finding work and raising a family...still there somewhere...but tainted with rhettoric and red tape and it just gets worse....

Perhaps the loss of the old guard will spark the creation of two new parties....

Blarneystoned

Blarney, you old anarchist you.

Seriously though, I think we agree on many things here. (Cue the press the world just ended). Anyways, earnestly, I think you're right. I think that if there were more personal responsibility, then we wouldn't need a government. (If everyone was perfect, anarchy would work) And I do hope that we get some new parties, multiple parties that separate the extremists from the moderates and let real policy get decided. I think we'd get a society that's more tolerant and more of a capitalistic that we can be proud of sort of thing.

Anyhoo, I guess it shows that if you go far enough one way, you start appearing on the other side. Like Einstein.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly.

The democratic party is anti military. They consistantly vote to lower defense spending and raise social spending. It's a part of their creedo. Has been since as long as I have been cognizant of politics and is the centerpiece of every democrat's emphasis on domestic issues over Foerign relations that I can remember.

Let's leave aside your memory as limiting the discussion, since you're quite versed in the history books.

Taking the Vietnam period, are you actually claiming defense spending was lowered, 'consistently' from say, 1963 to the Fall of Saigon in mid 1970s?

Where is your evidence?

Perhaps you're speaking of defense speaking as a % of the total federal budget? But that too, probably did not go down in the period in question.

The phenomenon you're talking about happens here, when the police each year ask for their budget: some lawmakers just give them the 8-10%; others call for only 5% are are tarred as 'anti police'.

Lastly, with all due respect, *EVEN IF* as legislator were to say.
"Let's have the DOD take only 25% of the total spending, instead of 28%", i.e., lowering the % (I'm making these number up),

Why would that make the person 'anti military'.???? That logic is entirely quesionable. There is a missing premise about the actual *needs* of the military machine.

As to your other point, Democrats emphasize domestic over foreign issues (in campaigns? during tenure?), you limit it to your memory. However, let's look at the big picture. if you read early Kennedy speeches (early 1960s), and note the fact that he took Nixon to task over the 'missile gap', there is a definite foreign policy emphasis.

In the Johnson period, the consensus, afaik, is that he tried for 'guns and butter'. Clearly it's incorrect to say he emphasized domestic over foreign issues, while sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Vietnam.

Your mistake, imo, is to take a campaign issue as showing essential character. Yes, if domestic is neglected, the dems pick it up (it's the economy!). If foreign were, that would be picked up as an issue, as for instance now. I'd say that Kerry is quite strong on emphasizing foreign policy issues. Kerry too, is emphasizing how the US, particularly its leadership is seen internationally.

It's just campaign myth that dems are effete French-speakers that don't mind Osama turning up in the living room: rather a military strong enough to do what has to be done is the cornerstone of democratic policy from FDR to present.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Colly.

The democratic party is anti military. They consistantly vote to lower defense spending and raise social spending. It's a part of their creedo. Has been since as long as I have been cognizant of politics and is the centerpiece of every democrat's emphasis on domestic issues over Foerign relations that I can remember.

Let's leave aside your memory as limiting the discussion, since you're quite versed in the history books.

Taking the Vietnam period, are you actually claiming defense spending was lowered, 'consistently' from say, 1963 to the Fall of Saigon in mid 1970s?

Where is your evidence?

Perhaps you're speaking of defense speaking as a % of the total federal budget? But that too, probably did not go down in the period in question.

The phenomenon you're talking about happens here, when the police each year ask for their budget: some lawmakers just give them the 8-10%; others call for only 5% are are tarred as 'anti police'.

Lastly, with all due respect, *EVEN IF* as legislator were to say.
"Let's have the DOD take only 25% of the total spending, instead of 28%", i.e., lowering the % (I'm making these number up),

Why would that make the person 'anti military'.???? That logic is entirely quesionable. There is a missing premise about the actual *needs* of the military machine.

As to your other point, Democrats emphasize domestic over foreign issues (in campaigns? during tenure?), you limit it to your memory. However, let's look at the big picture. if you read early Kennedy speeches (early 1960s), and note the fact that he took Nixon to task over the 'missile gap', there is a definite foreign policy emphasis.

In the Johnson period, the consensus, afaik, is that he tried for 'guns and butter'. Clearly it's incorrect to say he emphasized domestic over foreign issues, while sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Vietnam.

Your mistake, imo, is to take a campaign issue as showing essential character. Yes, if domestic is neglected, the dems pick it up (it's the economy!). If foreign were, that would be picked up as an issue, as for instance now. I'd say that Kerry is quite strong on emphasizing foreign policy issues. Kerry too, is emphasizing how the US, particularly its leadership is seen internationally.

It's just campaign myth that dems are effete French-speakers that don't mind Osama turning up in the living room: rather a military strong enough to do what has to be done is the cornerstone of democratic policy from FDR to present.

As I said Pure, if you don't accept the definitions then the point I was making falls down. We can assume you don't accept them and the point I was making is therefore moot.

I placed my statements within my memory. I did so for the simple purpose of that giving a time period of in and around 30 years. Times change, people change and parties change. For years the solid south was solidly democrat, now the south is solidly republican. Within the time frame of recent events, I think my assertions hold pretty true. That however may just be my perception as a conservative, born & raised.

In any case, the observation I was trying to make is throughly trashed, and I will keep my curiosity about it to myself.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Similarly John Kerry is anti-military. That is not a liberal or conservative value, but it is a Democratic party trademark.

Actually, no, he's not. Many of the weapons he's voted against, Dick Cheney himself was also against when he worked for the Bush I administration - and I hardly think we can accuse Cheney of being anti-military. When he voted against the Iraq funding bill, he favored an alternate bill that would have required the Iraqis to pay part of the cost of the rebuilding from their oil reserves, instead of U.S. taxpayers funding all of it.

I don't think I'm taking an extremist left view when I ask:

why must someone vote for every military spending bill without questioning HOW the money is spent, in order to avoid the anti-military accusation.

Do Republicans believe that the Pentagon is immune from the bureaucratic tendency to spend money inefficiently, and to ask for things it doesn't really need?

If someone is against Star Wars, does that mean the person is anti-military?

 

[shereads]

As I said Pure, if you don't accept the definitions then the point I was making falls down. We can assume you don't accept them and the point I was making is therefore moot.

I placed my statements within my memory. I did so for the simple purpose of that giving a time period of in and around 30 years. Times change, people change and parties change. For years the solid south was solidly democrat, now the south is solidly republican. Within the time frame of recent events, I think my assertions hold pretty true. That however may just be my perception as a conservative, born & raised.

In any case, the observation I was trying to make is throughly trashed, and I will keep my curiosity about it to myself.

-Colly

As a Southerner of an earlier generation, I think the South has always been solidly conservative, and on the far-right end of the spectrum in the more rural areas. The parties themselves switched places - The party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves, somehow became the party that held out against the Civil Rights Act; the traditional Southern Democrat of my father's generation was Strom Thurmond; when the party changed, Thurmond changed parties in protest. It doesn't mean that the South became more conservative; those who wanted to retain the status quo, re: race relations in particular, switched parties along with Thurmond or after. Neither party was quite rascist enough for George Wallace, so he ran on a third party ticket.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Again, Pure has made it abundantly clear that my observation is moot.I was operating under the assumption that each party has identifyable stances on issues. Apparently that is not the case.

-Colly