[liberalist]

I am wondering something about conservatives... perhaps some of them may help me out.

If I am not mistaken conservatives, eg Ronald Regean, believe in minimal government interference in people's lives. For example taxes should not be too high, and private enterprise should triumph over the public sector. Why is it then that many conservatives today are attempting to use the government to regulate how people live their lives. I am thinking here of the right of gays to marry, the rights of abortion, and the rights of people to burn flags. Why is it that conservatives think the government has the right to regulate these matters but not those of the economy?

Infact Barry Goldwater, a true conservative, said on this issue of gays in the military "'that government should stay out of people's private lives.'' I ask any neo-conservatives out there.. why should the government stay out of people's lives in terms of the economy but not in terms of social issues such as the right of gays to serve in the military and the right for a women to have an abortion and the right for people to burn flags?

[Goranhammer]

Conservatives believe in very little control in government over the financial aspects of people's lives. Many cons pride themselves on a very structured sense of morality, and all those things you mentioned...gay marriage, flag burning, etc...are highly unethical in contrast to the conservative way of life. That is why they make their voice heard on these subjects.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

flag burning

There's nothing more ethical than burning a flag. And after what some of protesters do to disrespect the flag, the proper course of action IS to burn it. We treat our flags like the Norse treated their warriors. After a lifetime of hard fighting, they are sent off gloriously in a wave of fire.

Flags aren't supposed to get too old to fly. Once they can no longer fight, they are sent off with honor.

Never let anyone tell you flag burning is wrong.

As for the original poster:

Conversatives are fairly "status quo" as a whole. The things you mentioned, while also being hands off government, are also seen as attacks on the conservative way of life. Although the government isn't interfering, the action in question [abortion, gay marriage, what have you] ARE in fact having an impact. The proper course [in some people's eyes, depending on issue] then is for the government to TAKE an action to remove the offense.

That's the theory anyway.

[Demosthenes]

Demo- edit: This topic was split from another as it was a little off-topic but still a relevant question. the user samllew may edit the title if he wishes.

Actually I agree to a certain extent that it is a bit of a fallacy on conservative's parts that they are basically such strong social interventionists. I frankly dislike that part of the pratice of the ideology myself.

If you are for small gubment but are strongly moralistic, you should definately voice discontent when others practice moral standards not like your own, but it seems to me you would scorn a larger gubment role in such matters. After all gubment involvement begats more gument involvement and only contributes to bigger beurocracy.

I believe individual conservatives are justified in personally critisizing the actions they find to be immoral, but I just don't see the need most of them have to legislate this morality.

[Freedom]

Most neoconservatives(or as I like to call em, militant liberals...but anyway) are not against "big government", Mr. NeoCon himself Bill Kristol has stated he is not "a government phobe", which is an obvious attack on decades of conservative thought.

am thinking here of the right of gays to marry, the rights of abortion

You have to view either of these things as a right in the first place.

I ask any neo-conservatives out there

Cant you people be consistent? If I where to state that I'm attacking Marxist Leninists and then half way through start talking about Trotskyites, I'd be laughed straight to hell.

[Graphic]

Conservatives want the government out of your bank and in your bedroom, while liberals want the government out of your bedroom and in your bank. They're both equally for/against government, just in different ways. Pick your poison.

[Vander]

Just a couple weeks ago I did some history looking and talking with family members with more political savvy than I possess, and quite frankly, Graphic has pretty much got it.

Liberals want to control the flow of money and business, but don't care what anybody believes or does with morality issues.

Republican conservatives want economic freedom and unrestrained business, while they are very active on politicizing moral issues.

Personally, I have to say the liberals are mostly correct in morality and ethical issues, and Republican conservatives are mostly correct in the realm of business and commerce.

Some would say that is a Libertarian stance, and it largely is. However, I support military pre-emptive strikes, and I am not in favor of legalized prostitution. These views would find disagreement among Libertarians.

And, I do not look at abortion as a moral issue. I have done enough study to conclude the the embryo, fetus, and all other forms the unborn take before birth, is a living human entity and should be protected by the same laws of the land that protect the newborn. Therefore, I logically come to the conclusion that abortion equals legalized murder.

That is why I coin myself as a fiscal conservative. I also hold that my views on morality are conservative as well, notwhithstanding media labels to the contrary, since they are views that strongly conserve individual liberty in all physical and spiritual realms.

[christianfundamentalist]

I am wondering something about conservatives... perhaps some of them may help me out.

If I am not mistaken conservatives, eg Ronald Regean, believe in minimal government interference in people's lives. For example taxes should not be too high, and private enterprise should triumph over the public sector. Why is it then that many conservatives today are attempting to use the government to regulate how people live their lives. I am thinking here of the right of gays to marry, the rights of abortion, and the rights of people to burn flags. Why is it that conservatives think the government has the right to regulate these matters but not those of the economy?

Conservatives favour a minimal state that interfears in it true role only. The state should provide defence, make laws and obtain order. I want a state that has low taxation and leaves me alone in the economic sphere but is activist in the social sphere.

Regards,
Richard Sherratt

[liberalist]

I want a state that has low taxation and leaves me alone in the economic sphere but is activist in the social sphere.

But why do you seperate economic from social matters. Why do you want the government to interfere in one but not the other? It seems rather inconsistant and contradictory to say on one hand that the government has no right interfering in the economic sphere, and to say on the other, the government should interfere in the social sphere. If the government does not have the right to interfere in the economic shpere, why do they have the right to interfere in the social sphere?

[christianfundamentalist]

But why do you seperate economic from social matters. Why do you want the government to interfere in one but not the other? It seems rather inconsistant and contradictory to say on one hand that the government has no right interfering in the economic sphere, and to say on the other, the government should interfere in the social sphere. If the government does not have the right to interfere in the economic shpere, why do they have the right to interfere in the social sphere?

Because God stated that the government should uphold Biblical law, which is mostly social and not economic. There is no inconsistency here nor any contradictions. If so, show me them?

Regards,
Richard Sherratt

[liberalist]

Didnt Jesus also have something to say about taxes.

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's

Luke 20:25

This is inconsistant with your demand for low taxation.

[Mark]

Didnt Jesus also have something to say about taxes.

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's

Luke 20:25

This is inconsistant with your demand for low taxation.

It doesn't specify how much Caesar's tax should be- and it's out of context. The point of the statement was the upholding of the rule of law.

[Noumenon]

Because God stated that the government should uphold Biblical law, which is mostly social and not economic. There is no inconsistency here nor any contradictions. If so, show me them?

And what if I don't believe in your God? No matter how much you seem to desire it, America is not a theocracy. You have no right to limit my freedoms just because some book says you can. If you want to establish a community within the US that upholds Biblical law, you are free to do so. Go out in the desert and live like Jesus, just leave the rest of us out of it.

Since I've divorced myself from the Republican party, I think I've been able to look at it in a more unbiased way. There is a core element of the party that thinks their view of morality should be imposed on all of society. That includes the so called "Christian Right." However, a significant percentage of the members are moderate on social issues. Its not fair to categorize all republicans as wanting to curtail your social freedom, however, generally they are very concerned with moral issues in society.

There is no question that Democrats want to restrict economic freedom. Their core is composed of mainly socialists, and I believe almost all of them, even the moderates, believe in keeping the same rate of taxes or increasing taxes. Their core is generally for social freedom, except in the case of gun control. Democratic politicans aren't usually distinguishable from republicans on moral issues, though. For example, both are against gay marraige and for the war on drugs.

[Demosthenes]

No surprise that I agree Vander on this postion with just a few tweeks to his stated beliefs.

Personally, I have to say the liberals are mostly correct in morality and ethical issues, and Republican conservatives are mostly correct in the realm of business and commerce.

Some would say that is a Libertarian stance, and it largely is. However, I support military pre-emptive strikes, and I am not in favor of legalized prostitution. These views would find disagreement among Libertarians.

I, also find the illegality of drug use to be a good idea. Which also distances me from the actual Libertarian party. I am essentially neutral (not to be confused with ambivilent) on the issues of abortion, and prostitution.

I think all sides agree a woman having to have an abortion is bad thing, I think if more time were spent trying to find a better solution to abortion, rather than arguing about it, The issue would have resolved itself by now. (I actually thought Ru486 would do this, but apparently the religous right had a problem even with this...and the women who need it STILL can't get it)

[Comrade Ogilvy]

And what if I don't believe in your God?

*Loves this part*
Too.. fricking.. bad..

I am quite honost so I'll say this bluntly. I don't care what you think. I don't care what that guy over there thinks. I don't even care what my own mother thinks. Because thinking does not make something great. DOING does. And even if I have to force you to do good, you will do it.

If life was about getting what you wanted I'd have a girlfriend and a beach house. But I don't. Learn to understand that freedom is not in itself a good thing, just a style. An art form. An impermanent illussion. You have no freedom, you have democracy, and democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

No matter how much you seem to desire it, America is not a theocracy. You have no right to limit my freedoms just because some book says you can.

Perfect example. I have no right to control you, but you have the right to stop me from controling you therfor you're controling me. Hence: Freedom does not exsist. Only democracy. And democracy is a web of lies.

[Noumenon]

And even if I have to force you to do good, you will do it.

If forcing someone to do something is justified as long as the "something" is good, then who decides what is good? If I thought it was good to give all your money and possessions to the poor, am I justified in forcing you to do so?

"The people decide what is good" you might say. Well, what if instead of just me, 51% of the American population said you should give up all your money and possessions? Are they then justified in forcing you to do so?

That is the problem with democracy. Freedom and true democracy are incompatible.

If life was about getting what you wanted I'd have a girlfriend and a beach house. But I don't. Learn to understand that freedom is not in itself a good thing, just a style. An art form. An impermanent illussion. You have no freedom, you have democracy, and democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Life is about getting what you want. If you want a girlfriend and a beach house, go out and get them. No one said it would be easy though.

Perfect example. I have no right to control you, but you have the right to stop me from controling you therfor you're controling me. Hence: Freedom does not exsist. Only democracy. And democracy is a web of lies.

You don't undertand freedom then. Freedom is doing whatever you want as long as what you do doesn't prevent other people from doing what they want. True freedom would not include the freedom to go around murdering people.

[Demosthenes]

Ok we're starting to dip into the realm of bizarro surreal themes which I don't feel are on topic. If someone wants to debate the nature of Freedom (the concept, not the user) plaese do it elsewhere, like in a Matrix II forum or something... Right now, the topic is whether or not the conservatives are Big Gubment, despite claims to the contrary. Please keep it that way.

-Demo

[bushwhack'd]

I actually wrote an article about this for an online magazine a short while ago. I didn't quite understand it, either.

Republicans, according to the RNC Web site, is for allowing people to keep their money while keeping government, in general, out of the household. With that as their mantra, I should, by definition, be a Republican. I tend to side more with Libertarians than Republicans, but whatever. I, however, am a registered Democrat. I believe that the Republicans no longer support my interests. I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I guess GWB is just the polar opposite.

The main problem with Bush is that he is not a true Republican. If you put his qualities into a political calculator, he is actually more of a Fascist than a Republican, mainly based on heavy corporatism, belief in privatization of of most public works, and a divinely-connected, state-directed moral order. This is exemplified by his stance against gay marriage, obscenity, sodomy, and his passion for the death penalty. Remember, not all Fascists were bad, as Mussolini was not overtly gassing Jews. They turned out to be quite good at command capitalism and managed to get economies roaring. It was the social stance of these people that was most horrific, as the ideologies got a little out of hand in the mob mentality. Nonetheless, on paper, Bush's view of government goes more with Fascists (again, just a parallel, not a likeness) than it does with Republicans.

However, this country employs an all-or-nothing electoral system that enshrines government from the center, not the fringes. Winner takes all, thus most politicians must at least appear and attempt to govern from a moderate stance. This is why GWB aimed at "compassionate conservatism" in 2000, left out much talk about gay marriage, sided with pro-lifers (and was more pro-choice than McCain, an avid pro-lifer), and simply talked about giving EVERYONE a tax cut. He knew it would attract a good number of independent voters. He fit a center-right political stance, even after throwing a bone to the Christian Right, which eventually turned out for him and handed him the presidency (somehow). It was a winning strategy.

The problem is, however, that Bush has no other party to run with. His stance (socially conservative, fiscally...well, liberal with spending), lumps him in, mostly, with everyone on the right of the political middle ground. Libertarians, minimalists, isolationists, and fascists are all considered "conservative" in America (and rightly so), thus Republican, even though the mainstream Republican does not embody most of these characteristics. Anyone who agrees with even a few of these philosophies will vote Republican every time, even if the candidate does not jive with the voter's conscience. To this voter, a Democrat is anathema to his interests. The voter is simply picking the lesser of two evils.

Due to the political realities of this country, a person such as Bush, who believes in governmental control of social order but in lesser levels of taxation, will align himself with other Republicans for political gain. These other Republicans may not agree with anything Bush has to say. Regardless, they all wear the same label, thus they are painted with the same broad brush. Since they're all labeled the same, it is in the best interest of the party for all of them to stick together in order to get re-elected, even though the interests of the individuals may be divergent from the party goals. This results in most Republicans supporting Bush (especially when his popularity is high), even if he supports high levels of spending. The conservative voters in the party want a Republican in office regardless, as they would never vote for a Democrat.

The result? You have a party touting high spending on military and security, higher benefits for old people (typically Republicans), tax cuts, less regulation, and less merger control. You have many touting moral order, to be directed by President Bush, a born-again Christian. His party must support him in order to be re-elected - congressmen are lumped in with the president - thus you have a mixed-up, dichotomous government run by the center-right party.

Simple as that

[Vander]

Well written, bushwhack'd. Bush has been spending like a blind lotto winner, that is for sure.

I can't say I agree with the parallel of Bush being a fascist, though. If Bush is a fascist, then every single politician in the country is a fascist. I do not think that is the case. Receiving huge donations from corporations does not equal fascism, nor does a stance against the typical morality issues in our country. Being against gay marriage, sodomy, obsenity, and being pro-death-penalty could also be stances based soley on Christian/Muslim/Judaism family values.

[bushwhack'd]

Actually, I would argue that Bush is closer to being a fascist than you insinuate, and not for reasons of corporate donations, but rather of corporate alliances. To my knowledge, fascism is defined as the alliance of government and corporation for the purpose of state-commanded, capitalistic efficiency. This is done at the expense of the worker and union, which are seen as elements that slow the economy. The command economy, by nature, will embrace crony capitalism in the sense that the state will direct to whom the business will go, thus the alliances.

One could argue that Bush and Cheney have ties with Big Oil (Halliburton), Big Media (Fox and Ruppert Murdoch), and Big Energy (Enron and Ken Lay). Also, fascists, such as Hitler, saw things like pornography and prostitution as disgusting. They see them as signs of a poor, groveling proletariat, thus leading them to believe in a state-directed moral order which disproportionately affects the lower and middle classes. I believe that President Bush's support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage would fit this bill, as would his use of the FCC to punish people like Howard Stern. In Stern's case, one could also argue that Bush used the FCC to push his own political agenda, as Stern was starting to turn on Bush politically. Weakening of unions is also a trait of fascists. The Bush Admin is God awful on worker protection, pay, and collective bargaining (I'm in a union). This would support this notion.

All politicians take donations and many take PAC money to fund campaigns. It's the only way to get heard. However, once in power, a fascist will align with corporations to increase power (ever watch Fox News and see them stumpin' for the Dems?) over the lower classes. I believe Bush fits this bill well.