[Drlee]

Here in Canada I see Liberals foisting social and economic responsibility onto government and other people, routinely virtue signalling, but are rarely wiling to take action or responsibility themselves.
There seems to be an increasing focus on groups over individuals.

I agree with this. As a conservative I have a strong affinity for personal responsibility. I also believe that in the US there is a real tendency toward increasingly centralized government. The Department of Education is a great example. It is solely designed to give the federal government control over local school districts. I would completely abolish it. Federally insured or direct student loans are another example. They have driven up the price of even mediocre colleges and universities while encouraging students to make poor personal choices about money and their futures. I would much prefer to see merit based scholarships. As it is we are requiring a college degree for jobs that absolutely do not require one.

On the issue of health care I take a different approach. I favor a single payer system because it is so efficient. We could easily cover everyone, with better care, for a fraction of what we are paying now.

I wish we could become one centered on the individual. I would like to see more personal responsibility for sure but not if that means that the people are needlessly exploited by business and government. I would like to see greatly enhanced personal privacy and laws requiring the businesses actually pay the cost of employees. (Living wage laws.)

[Billy Pilgrim]

I agree with this. As a conservative I have a strong affinity for personal responsibility. I also believe that in the US there is a real tendency toward increasingly centralized government. The Department of Education is a great example. It is solely designed to give the federal government control over local school districts. I would completely abolish it. Federally insured or direct student loans are another example. They have driven up the price of even mediocre colleges and universities while encouraging students to make poor personal choices about money and their futures. I would much prefer to see merit based scholarships. As it is we are requiring a college degree for jobs that absolutely do not require one.

On the issue of health care I take a different approach. I favor a single payer system because it is so efficient. We could easily cover everyone, with better care, for a fraction of what we are paying now.

I wish we could become one centered on the individual. I would like to see more personal responsibility for sure but not if that means that the people are needlessly exploited by business and government. I would like to see greatly enhanced personal privacy and laws requiring the businesses actually pay the cost of employees. (Living wage laws.)

Only one of your points listed above(abolishment of the DOE) would remotely float on a modern mainstream Republican platform. I don't think you can even call yourself a moderate Republican today. But, what is in a name. Single payer health in my belief is necessary and could easily be deemed conservative because it is practical on many levels. Living wage laws--check. As far as educational reform, the time has come, as we both know our dear fellow citizens are not the sharpest tools in the shed and are easily exploited by business(colleges) and government. Personal responsibility seems a bit of a hallow political mantra, but not cringe worthy, if your intent is for more subsidiarity.

[Drlee]

Only one of your points listed above(abolishment of the DOE) would remotely float on a modern mainstream Republican platform.

You are probably correct. This is because of an interesting phenomena. The republican party has lost its core beliefs and become a party of single-issue voters in many places. SO:

I don't think you can even call yourself a moderate Republican today

That depends upon where one is. Here is the thing I have to keep reminding most of our overseas, and sadly even US members. The US only has one national office. That is President. (Technically two but the Vice President is essentially appointed by the presidential candidate.) What does that mean? It means that when looking for the real power in the party we have to look to the myriad local offices. In these, the issues are quite different. Let me give you an example.

In Arizona (a bright red state in which I live) education is a huge local issue. So big it spills into the congressional and senate race not just the statewide offices. Not so much in Nebraska. Abortion is a minor issue in Arizona compared to, say, Georgia.

So am I a moderate republican? No. I am a progressive republican. (We used to be quite common. Nixon and Rockefeller were two examples.) Though my position on many issues is irrelevant in Mississippi; not so in Arizona. And even more relevant in my local congressional district which is considered usually blue. As Sam Irvin correctly pointed out..."All politics is local".

Examples:

But, what is in a name. Single payer health in my belief is necessary and could easily be deemed conservative because it is practical on many levels.

Mitt Romney was our presidential candidate last go-around. He was a supporter of a very nearly single-payer system in his home state of Massachusetts. There is an example of where a "true Scotsman" could indeed easily support the move to a single payer system.

Living wage laws--check.

Alaska passed minimum wage increases under a republican governor.

So here is the thing. The reason the Tea Party (Freedom Caucus) is so powerful in the House is that they are the only significant group that offers a united front on issues nationally. They are a minority of representatives yet they drive the agenda because the republicans offer a vastly different notion of governance than the more ideologically united democratic party.

(I hope Red Barn sees this post. Greetings my friend.)

[Clangeddin]

The Progressive side of Liberalism has a belief that everyone is equal, but some people deserve special treatment. Questioning that special treatment means you support unfairness.
High levels of openness and tolerance leads to forgiving actions that should have consequences, leading to unaccountability and a soft moral base.
Here in Canada I see Liberals foisting social and economic responsibility onto government and other people, routinely virtue signalling, but are rarely wiling to take action or responsibility themselves.
There seems to be an increasing focus on groups over individuals.

To be fair, this actually finds its roots in christianity, especially in catholicism. Pretty much the only innovative (if we exclude the fluff / lore) core element in the doctrine it provided compared to Judaism is the element of forgival as an alternative to punishment/retaliation.
The prime example of this is Italy, a country that has been overwhelmingly chatholic since it's birth (and was for many centuries before it existed, since the end of the western roman empire) it has never been a "liberal" country (heck it had honor killings from husbands and fathers punished with 3 to 7 years of prison up to 1981) yet it features one of the most tolerant and forgiving justice systems. I may even dare to say that for certain categories, ie white collars, it IS the most forgiving justice system in the world.
Now, new liberals may have jumped on that ship as well, but this can be one of the many highlights of how their ideals simply shifted to another paradigm, in this perspective it's not the former liberal (the individual who used to be liberal years ago) who becomes a conservative, but it's the platform that labels itself as liberal that ceases to be and becomes something else. In a dual liberal or conservative (with no third option) binary line of thinking, this may lead to the illusion that someone who used to be liberal then became a conservative, but it's not always the case.

[Finfinder]

I used to be really liberal, and still of am, but I've had enough life experiences to where I am starting to think that a lot of liberal ideas are way too idealistic and there's probably not that much of a chance that they'd work out very well in reality.
Mostly that there's far too many people in the world who are self centered, and kind of greedy and often times I think this is why it doesn't work out in reality. It seems like there are all together not that many who can stand strong against things like corruption, and eventually do not give in themselves, despite whatever their original intentions may have been.

I'd say one of the most famous example is Charles Krauthammer but I would expect many people after having their first child may think differently about abortion. Another issue is we just came off a 8 years of, the meaning of "compromise " to liberals, is agreeing with them.

[MememyselfandIJK]

I'm probably the one exception on the thread, but when I was a pre-teen, I was center-left. I believed in a secular, somewhat regulated society. As I grew older, I learned about reality (via history and seeing it). This made me shift much further to the left, as I generally agreed with arguments for socialism.

[Reichstraten]

I'm highly critical of most of the mainstream liberal thought, as well as of the excesses that go with it.
But I'll never become conservative because I can't identify with this kind of people who call themselves so.

[One Degree]

I'm highly critical of most of the mainstream liberal thought, as well as of the excesses that go with it.
But I'll never become conservative because I can't identify with this kind of people who call themselves so.

I have the same problem, but you must realize the stereotype of a conservative is Liberal propaganda. The truth is not the stereotype.

[Reichstraten]

I have the same problem, but you must realize the stereotype of a conservative is Liberal propaganda. The truth is not the stereotype.

It's not only the stereotype that drives me away from them.
Actually I've read more books from right-wingers, among whom a lot of conservatives, than from left-wingers.
There are valid points to be made about relativism, subjectivism, multi-culturalism, elite liberal thought, and so on. And I agree with most of them. But that doesn't make me a conservative.

[One Degree]

It's not only the stereotype that drives me away from them.
Actually I've read more books from right-wingers, among whom a lot of conservatives, than from left-wingers.
There are valid points to be made about relativism, subjectivism, multi-culturalism, elite liberal thought, and so on. And I agree with most of them. But that doesn't make me a conservative.

Imo, what makes someone a conservative is a belief in community rights. Individual rights should only be sought within a community and not viewed as superior to community rights.

[Reichstraten]

Imo, what makes someone a conservative is a belief in community rights. Individual rights should only be sought within a community and not viewed as superior to community rights.

I do think community and the individual need each other and are reciprocal to each other. But I have no further deep thoughts about this so I can't engage in a philosphical debate with you on this issue.

However, I do think communitarian philosphers like Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre are more interesting than liberal ones like John Rawls or Ronald Dworkin. From what I've read from/about them. But I also value indivual conscience high, in the protestant sense.

[Drlee]

Individual rights should only be sought within a community and not viewed as superior to community rights.

They have to be thought as superior. It is on the one-man-one-vote principle that democratic communities are based. That is unless you want an authoritarian form of government.

I am surprised that you can so doggedly follow your notions of community without realizing that the history of man is the history of the tyranny of the masses. It is only recently that we (people) have embraced the notion of the supremacy of certain universal individual rights. And understood that the absence of these rights; the protection of individuals within the community becomes impossible.

[One Degree]

They have to be thought as superior. It is on the one-man-one-vote principle that democratic communities are based. That is unless you want an authoritarian form of government.

I am surprised that you can so doggedly follow your notions of community without realizing that the history of man is the history of the tyranny of the masses. It is only recently that we (people) have embraced the notion of the supremacy of certain universal individual rights. And understood that the absence of these rights; the protection of individuals within the community becomes impossible.

We seem to be having the same argument on different threads. Individual rights can not exist without a community acknowledging them, unless you claim they come from God. You are simply taking the view that individual rights should be superior and saying that makes them superior. It is the relationship between individuals and their community. It may or may not include the rights you think are important.

[Drlee]

We seem to be having the same argument on different threads. Individual rights can not exist without a community acknowledging them, unless you claim they come from God. You are simply taking the view that individual rights should be superior and saying that makes them superior. It is the relationship between individuals and their community. It may or may not include the rights you think are important.

Nope. I was specific about free speech. Tell me how a democracy can exist without free speech being superior to all other laws and agreements. I have already show you how it can't.

[One Degree]

Nope. I was specific about free speech. Tell me how a democracy can exist without free speech being superior to all other laws and agreements. I have already show you how it can't.

Why do you assume a community must be a Democracy. We have invented all kinds of qualifiers to place in front of Democracy to justify limiting rights including free speech. Does 'hate speech ' mean you are no longer a Democracy? Yes, you must become a 'qualified democracy ' which means you ain't a Democracy.
Your point is irrelevant.
The community decides what rights you have and names the government accordingly.

[Decky]

In the west if you stopped being a liberal you would also stop being a conservative.

[Drlee]

The community decides what rights you have and names the government accordingly.

This is incorrect. The powerful decide what rights you have and names the government accordingly. Unless you have a democracy. (And I would not include the US these days in that description.)