lone_ghost Loc: Wisconsin

I can not help but think that far too many issues get lost within the shadow of political party identification. It seems that it would be more appropriate to discuss things on the basis of conservative or liberal view points. After all, not every liberal is a democrat, nor every conservative a republican. I came to this way of thinking after completing my psychology classes in which I learned that even though I consider myself a die hard conservative, I have a lot of beliefs that would be considered liberal. An example would be my belief that homosexuality is wrong, a very conservative view point. On the other hand I do not believe that any one has the right to interfere with another persons life unless it is a direct threat to public safety, a very liberal view point. These personal beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with what political party I chose to follow, and everything to do with my own sense of morality, and my understanding of ethical behavior. It can become a bit trying at times when my own morality conflicts with what I consider to be ethical action.
I saw another post in here about the difference between democrats and republicans, this is not the right question to ask because a political party does not encompass the individuals that make it up. So the question then becomes, what is the difference between conservatives and liberals.
I have my own opinion on that subject. Conservatives tend to be realists, they look at the world with a more pragmatic lens and make decisions based more on fact and logic. Liberals tend to be more idealistic, they look at the world more as how they think it should be instead of the way it is with their decisions based more in emotion than logic.
Are either of these more right than the other? Not in my opinion, they both have simply been reluctant to find a common ground on which to build an effective platform where something meaningful can actually be accomplished. So saying republican vs. democrat would be a misnomer since the issue is actually liberal vs. conservative.
This is of course my own opinion and I look forward to any feedback.

rumitoid

Forest: liberals; trees: conservatives. Each position represents different characteristics of perceiving and interpreting events. Both positions are needed to gain the fullest perspective and most balanced approach and solution. Liberals favor challenging the old and change, while conservatives look to maintain the status quo. In concert, working together, there is our needed middle ground, which has now been turned into No Man's Land by the demonizing on both sides.

lone_ghost Loc: Wisconsin

Very well put. I would have to say I live in that no mans land where only the truly open minded can exist.

rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.

I agree. However, knowing what the problem is, and fixing it is two different things. One becomes history, the other takes unity as you say. However, there are those in government that will hinder any growth such as Pelosi, or should I say emporess Pelosi. I swear, everytime her mouth opens I see the bunghole of Government.

BoJester

You made many good points, and I agree that no matter how individuals 'label' themeselves, most have some view points that are total contradictions of the label.
Modern conservatism, as started in the 1950's is far different that the conservatism of the founders and the early years of the republic. In fact, modern conservatism high-jacked the conservative name, but with much different politacal goals. Many of the original 'modern conservatives' were former liberals and communists. (see attached)
I think a major problem between conservatives and liberals of today are based on what is defined as tradition, and reluctance to change ideas, attitudes and perceptions. Modern conservatives hate progress, and those who espouse that the country of today is not what it was in1776. Conservatives want to interpret the consitution based on what they think the founders meant, but reject that the founders would see many things different if they were writing the constitution today. Progressives see things in the context that the world, therefore, the country is constantly changing, and ideas must change with the times.
The culture of the 1700's will never be possible today. Multi-culturalism and secularism are here to stay, and conservatives are having a difficult time in accepting and adapting.
And the media noise from those like limburg and his acolytes do nothing but reinforce the divide of the people. In large part because it is big money to be involved the political hate business.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

lone_ghost Loc: Wisconsin

Heh Heh, "we have to pass it so we can know what is in it". By far the stupidest words I have ever heard come out of some one's mouth. I do not think they want to hinder growth, they just want to make sure that growth goes their way.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

That's why I'm indepedent and not either. I vote for the person not a party.

BoJester

What is really stupid is the 'selective editing' of her comments, who she was addressing when the comment was made, and taking the comment completey out of context

lone_ghost Loc: Wisconsin

Interesting points about the founding fathers and their conservatism since America was never meant to be a democracy. The founding fathers intended America to be a republic where rule was directly or indirectly controlled by the people, not the governing body as it is today. The constitution reflects this in it's architecture. The idea was for the government to adhere to the people's wishes through a voting process (today we would call this the popular vote) and that effectively ended the process. The government could not enact a law, declare war, or enact any social abidance unless the majority of the people agreed to it. I think we would be a lot better off if we had stuck with that system.

Loki Loc: Georgia

The conservatism of the Founders was different from the conservatism of today because their conservatism was basically the Liberal philosophy espoused by the 17th Century writer John Locke. What is stated as the platform of the Libertarian Party is closer to much of the Founders' beliefs. Change is not always desirable. The encroachment of snoopy government is not a desirable change. Physical history is driven by the prevailing belief systems of the time and place.

lone_ghost Loc: Wisconsin

Nicely put.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Thank you. I'm one of those advocates of large amounts of personal freedom, but unlike some others, I also realize that there is a large amount of personal responsibility as it's concomitant. This is overlooked by some. The level of voter ignorance today is appalling to me.

lone_ghost Loc: Wisconsin

I agree, everyone likes to posture on issues but when it comes down to it they seem to be absent at the polls. In my opinion if you do not vote, you should shut the hell up.

Loki Loc: Georgia

So much talk about the "Founders," yet the Founders did not envision a nation where the only requirement to vote was the ability to fog a mirror. (Given the number of corpses who have risen from the grave in some precincts to do their civic duty, even that is apparently no longer a requirement). You had to be a property of business owner. You had to have some "skin in the game."

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio