liberal or conservative?

That's a fairly good summation of my previous post...

Maybe another interesting related topic is, why would anyone espouse the neo-conservative ideology, and how do people come to determine which philosophy fits them better.

Yes, but there can be conservative capitalists and liberal capitalists.

DC_DEEP, thanks for the comment. I look at our society and I see that most people aren't capable of becoming independent businessmen or women, don't have the drive or intelligence to succeed financially. I think for the dominant culture to constantly impose the "American Dream" on the population is just a marketing tool to sell us stuff. I don't know if it's liberal or conservative, but I think that all citizens should have a safe and clean place to live, have a healthy environment, and good health care. I think these should be rights. So instead of the top 1% of people owning most of the wealth, laws should be enacted that will balance this equation. Obviously something is wrong if there's this kind of inequity. And it doesn't have to be socialistic.

I would get so slammed if I posted my thoughts on this, Jon.

Not everyone can or should be an independent business person; not every job description fits that need. I do find it exceptionally interesting, though, that the "necessary-ness" of most jobs is inversely proportional to the potential for greatest income. What I mean is, some of the most important jobs pay the least, and some of the least important jobs pay the most.

For instance, everyone loves his favorite quarterback, but could this country survive better and longer with no football and lots of teachers, or with lots of football teams but no schools?

I reject both of these labels and reject labels in general, especially when people try to apply them to me. My personal political beliefs are all over the political spectrum, with views that include very "liberal" positions, very "conservative" positions, some very "libertarian" positions, and some that are just plain off the political map. I sometimes describe myself as a moderate or centrist, but again, that's another inadequate label when it comes to accurately describing me complete with its own baggage. I don't mind the label of moderate as much as these other labels though because to me personally it connotes someone who is able to be realistic, not beholden to idiotic and infantile partisanship, able to compromise, admit mistakes, revise opinions, etc. Someone not completely biased that sees everything in black and white.

The negative connotations that go with the label of "moderate" I could do without, though. I'm not someone who can't make up their mind, I'm not someone with no opinions on anything, I'm not a habitual fence-sitter, I'm not under-informed, I'm not politically unaffiliated due to apathy or ignorance, and it's not that I'm afraid to take a stand on anything or say what I believe in.

I think both major political parties in the United States are corrupt, backward, inefficient and ineffectual. I also think they are far more similar then either will admit. I would be loathe to ever cast a vote for either a registered Republican or a registered Democrat. I also don't see how the list of things that either party is supposed to stand for is necessarily wholly congruous. There are many issues out there that don't seem to me like they are liberal or conservative issues, yet in Washington EVERY stupid thing gets placed in one of two camps. It's absurd.

I have more views today that would be described as "liberal" than I used to. I was raised by my father who is a stalwart Republican (even though he used to be a hippy, but I think just because it was trendy. Now instead of getting his ideas from John Lennon he gets them from Fox News). When I was a child and still thought like a child (and therefore thought like most political pundits) I considered myself a Republican as well. I was also raised as a Christian, and when I was a child I thought of myself as a Christian. As I got older, I started thinking for myself and forming my own political and spiritual ideology and forming my own sense of identity. I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh around 1999, stopped liking Bill O'Reilly around 2002, and accepted that Bill Clinton really wasn't that bad of a president around 2003 or so. To my credit I never cared for Hannity.


Anyway, long story short and to answer the OP: I'm none of the above. Why? I think for myself. If you attempt to categorize or label me, you will inevitably be WRONG. If you want to know where I stand on an issue, you're going to have to ask me and wade through a nuanced and detailed answer. Reality is not binary.

I have picked upon a number of the right wingers in here (some of them now banned) for completely blind sidedly supporting Bush. And when I picked two or three specific topics of many that the current president has yet to answer for, they were ignored, or I was dubbed a "hippie liberal" (among other things), which is a way of saying "go away".

I'm not a total liberal, nor am I a conservative. The check list of conservative views that makes you able to air your voice on the Rush Limbaugh show is not mine.

The issue of US versus THEM, as played out in Rush Limbaugh's world is pretty dimly unintelligent. Another person on this board (also banned) seemed to listen to right wing show folk to the point that she downloaded their programs onto her iPod so she could always hear them.

Dunnno. I've made up my mind by life experience, not because someone has given me an opinion to accept.

I'm very liberal but I don't believe marijauna should be legalized.

AH yeas, oh the wall comments again. Fine. Me neither.

Back to the topic at hand...

Well said sir!!!

As for me, I am a flaming liberal... one of those socialists. I have respect for conservatives and appreciate their values and convictions though.

I used to be an enthusiastic "Young Goldwater Republican." I haven't changed too much from those 1964 Republican ideals. However, in today's oddly engineered political environment Goldwater and I are considered far left of center Liberals. The only difference is he's dead and I'm not (yet).

feel the same way concerning the "conservative" ideals that I still hold on to.

Crazy fucking world, isn't it?

Well, that was the point of my diatribe of a first post in this thread. Conservative actually used to have some good connotation. But many who adhered to a generally conservative philosophy have been betrayed by the neo-conservative movement. And, since conservatism is, by definition, resistant to change, many are reluctant to give up that label, and just accept what has been done to their philosophy.

Funny, "conservative" used to include (quite vigorously) the idea of smaller, less-intrusive government. Now, a huge, lumbering big-brother seems to be the hallmark of "conservative ideals."

I hear ya, sugar booger, and please don't presume I mean any intentional offense, but to understand the polarization of liberal and conservative in USA politics you need to up your reading list to include a number of books on modern linguistic research. I would suggest starting with Manufacturing Consent (yes, by 'Mericuh's greatest "dissident" Noam Chomsky) and take a Political Science 101 refresher course on the updated categories of political systems: socialist monarchies, democratic socialism, christian socialism, regular old-fashioned socialism, the differences among the idea of a commonwealth such as Massachusetts and commonwealths such as Canada and Australia, post-industrial religious monarchies that never had to go through an industrial phase (Arab States) --- oh, there's just a bunch of stuff that's kept changing since the dusty political science theories I studied in the 1970's. None of it stays the same.

Many sober, well-respected and honest political theorists outside of the USA have noticed that the current actions of the Bush Administration to over stretch the reach of executive powers are markedly similar to ways in which the Wiemar Republic was demonized and finally deserted in favor of the National Socialst movement in 1933. In hind sight, it had very little to do with socialism. And despite the name, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, it was, in fact, what we now recognize as a fascist political machine. In English the historical name National Socialist German Workers Party is the polite term used when referring to Nazis. But it doesn't stop there. The quaint politics of religious dictatorships, so common up to the end of the Ottoman Empire, have rebounded with great enthusiasm with lots of people in many countries, not just the Middle East.

I don't presume to have all the answers on exactly when liberal became a four-letter word, but it is still possible to understand how so recently the political spinners learned to control our political beliefs and general thinking -- at least it's easy until they ban and burn all of the intellectual resources. As I'm sure you've noticed, it is now quite common in the USA among the 10 to 20 years-old set to be derided for individual thinking and being educated. There's some good published research on that phenomenon, too. But for most of Americans that means having to read, and a surprising number of people have posted on LPSG, they don't like to read.

That's the reason this thread was ignored by most members. The topic of this thread is good but most members don't like deep discussions.

I'd estimate that those who are neo-cons likewise formed their opinions by life experiences. They listen to Rush Limbaugh et al to merely reinforce or amplify their existing views.

-------

Back to topic, I call myself centrist.

Right... and other traditional or one-time hallmarks: fiscal responsibility, not excessively meddling in international affairs, not committing to nation building, protecting free speech, foreign/military policy characterized by restraint, smaller federal government/increased state power, defending the constitution... have been similarly eschewed. Some of these discarded ideals are still paid lip service to, while others have been "reimagined" and painted as the positions of Goldwater and Reagan or other the Republican party of yore even when they clearly were not.