lukeiamyourdad Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 but they are definitely not 'liberal' in any reasonable definition of the term (not even in the wierd American use of the word). I know what I'd call them, though. And they can't be called liberals, because the change they want doesn't have anything to do with liberalism in any shape I know of. Yes, they are liberals, in the economical sense of the word, which prones a smaller government who leaves more room for the industries to do what they want. They are liberals and not in the wicked american sense (referring to leftists).
ShadowTemplar Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 On the economic front, I'm inclined to agree with you - but their social policies are anything but.
Lathain Valtiel Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 But on the social front it's not possible to call them conservatives either, since by definition conservatives attempt to maintain a status quo, which they REALLY aren't doing. You can't put them on the far right, since you can't say they are advocating some changeback to a previously existing form of government (what they're proposing is unheard of... I kind of think of it like Warhammer 40k's Imperium). Therefore, the only place you can put them is somewhere on the left, since they fail all checks for being on the right unless you arbitrarily assign religious tendency to the right. Their economic policies are distinctly liberal, and you can make an argument that they're attempting to institute an extreme form of liberalism's mandate that government should protect property and the ability to gain property. --- I know it wasn't the main point, but since the report is apparently skewed I'll say no more. I know about the fallacies of stats, but they're still useful if read correctly. There's a reason I said 'or a not completely biased report'.
TK-8252 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 In American politics: The way I see it, neo-cons like Bush and his cronies who have hijacked the republican party are liberal on government, and conservative socially. Considered neither conservative nor liberal... so you get neo-conservatism. And it's the worst philosophy IMO. The complete opposite to libertarianism (conservative on government, liberal socially).
rccar328 Posted March 3, 2006 Author Posted March 3, 2006 TK, I think you hit the nail right on the head there.
TK-8252 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 TK, I think you hit the nail right on the head there. Well, I'm sure you've misread my post somehow then. If you mean by the "worst philosophy" I was referring to neo-conservatism...
rccar328 Posted March 4, 2006 Author Posted March 4, 2006 Well, I'm sure you've misread my post somehow then. If you mean by the "worst philosophy" I was referring to neo-conservatism... I wasn't agreeing with you that neo-conservatism is the 'worst philosophy.' I don't agree with neo-cons (in some areas), but I don't think it's the worst philosophy out there. I was agreeing with your definition.
TK-8252 Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 I was agreeing with your definition. Oh... well, my mistake then! Also, I'm gonna have to back off my comment about neo-conservatism being the worst... communism clearly is worse...
lukeiamyourdad Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 Also, I'm gonna have to back off my comment about neo-conservatism being the worst... communism clearly is worse... Meh, we can argue about that for a long time. Let's just say there's a lot of bad philosophies out there
toms Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 Most of the philosophies are reasonable... its when people implement them in a fanatical way... and allow their beliefs to override their logic and humanity that things go wrong.
Kurgan Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 Another big problem often associated with neo-cons is the jingoistic tendancy...
TK-8252 Posted March 11, 2006 Posted March 11, 2006 Most of the philosophies are reasonable... its when people implement them in a fanatical way... and allow their beliefs to override their logic and humanity that things go wrong. Something may sound good, but hey, so did "spreading democracy." We all see how good that turned out eh?
toms Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Are people saying that because neo-cons want smaller government they are liberal and not conservative? Or am i misreading that? I thought one of the defining points of right wing conservatives was their insistance on business and slashing government size? The thing that has always bugged me about the political parties is that neither is consistent: Right/Conservatives want: less government regulation and interference for businesses - more for people's private lives. Left/Liberals want: more regulation and interference for business, but less for people's private lives. When you get people who are idealogically extreme then they will pursue those ideologies in the face of all common sense. Eg:In the 80s in the UK the conservatives decided that privatising a lot of national industries was a great way to increase competition and therefore reduce prices. Sounds reasonable. So they did it for a few industries and it worked ok. But then, because they were pursuing the policy based on ideology rather than common sense, they decided to privatise a whole load of other industries (like the trains) which made no sense whatsoever. These were a total disaster. And because the labour government had opposed ALL privatisations on idealogical grounds (even the ones that made sense) they had no weight when they attacked the ones that didn't make sense. Unfortunately in politics, with a public that votes based on minor soundbites, its seen as better to be consistent and wrong than to be flexible, adaptive and right.
rccar328 Posted March 13, 2006 Author Posted March 13, 2006 Are people saying that because neo-cons want smaller government they are liberal and not conservative? Or am i misreading that? I thought one of the defining points of right wing conservatives was their insistance on business and slashing government size? The difference between conservatives and neo-cons is that while neo-cons are conservative on social issues (such as abortion & gay marriage), they are liberal when it comes to government expansion (I believe President Bush has yet to veto a spending bill coming out of Congress). Real conservatives, on the other hand, want smaller government and are conservative on social issues.
edlib Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 They also differ a bit in their attitude towards foreign policy: Neo-Cons tend to have a very aggressive outward-looking foreign policy stance, quite action oriented; while "classic" conservatives seem to tend towards a bit more isolationist. It seems sometimes that foreign policy IS the driving factor behind much of the neo-con platform. That's really their strength. They seem weaker and less focused on domestic issues.
rccar328 Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 They also differ a bit in their attitude towards foreign policy: Neo-Cons tend to have a very aggressive outward-looking foreign policy stance, quite action oriented; while "classic" conservatives seem to tend towards a bit more isolationist. It seems sometimes that foreign policy IS the driving factor behind much of the neo-con platform. That's really their strength. They seem weaker and less focused on domestic issues. For a lot of people, it is. I honestly believe that if it wasn't for his stance on foreign policy, President Bush wouldn't have been re-elected - too many conservatives disagree with his stances on issues like illegal immigration & government spending. The problem is that a popular enough [acceptable] alternative has yet to be found.
ShadowTemplar Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 It seems sometimes that foreign policy IS the driving factor behind much of the neo-con platform. That's really their strength. The Iraquagmire is a strength?
edlib Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 "Strength" insofar as that's the one position in their common ideology that really holds them together and drives them forward. And it gets the electorate's attention,.. for better or worse. Take away the neo-con's national security and foreign policy, and exactly what to they have left? Nothing really capable of getting them elected, that's for sure... The Wiki entry on American NeoConservatisim seems pretty well done, and is actually pretty informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
toms Posted March 15, 2006 Posted March 15, 2006 One idea parties are a lot easier to promote and gain support for, but a lot harder to sustain over the long term. I'm not clear on whether bush WANTS to be spending all that money, or if its just easier to call for cutting costs than it is to actually do it when faced with the stark choices of exactly what essential services to cut. Bush certainly never struck me as in any way liberal... though the whole second term / lame duck factor has to be taken into account, as he is certainly behaving in a different manner to his first term. Interesting commentary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4807446.stm
toms Posted March 16, 2006 Posted March 16, 2006 For those against hillary's stand on video games may i quote ctrl-alt-del: Video Game Voter's Network 08:13 PM - Monday, March 13, 2006 - by Tim As I regard this to be a very important issue for gamers, I urge everyone to take a look at this website. I am going to be behind this 110%. I've signed up, and I hope you'll do the same. They've got a great backend system that will assist you in contacting your local senators once you've signed up. Also, they have a solid collection of facts regarding games and video game violence that you should take a look at to educate yourself on our side of the argument.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.