Liberal thought

[pctacitus]

I have more appreciation for a classical liberal like Jefferson than for a more modern liberal like FDR.The Nobel Prize winning Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek wrote a postscript to his book The Constitution of Liberty entitled Why I am Not a Conservative. Hayek, who was born in the late 19th Century, thought of Conservatives as those in favor of the Monarchy. The kind of Classical Conservatism best put forward by Edmund Burke in his work on the French Revolution would have been his understanding of what conservatism was. To Hayek, being in favor of free markets, no government interference in industry, no government run social welfare programs, and a republic or parliamentary democracy was what it meant to be liberal.FDR, the founder of modern American liberalism, by contrast was a Keynesian when it came to economics. He was also in favor of social welfare programs. When the Supreme Court found many of FDR's programs unconstitutional, he tried to pack the Court by appointing seven new members who would uphold his programs. Doug Larson: "The cat could very well be man's best friend but would never stoop to admitting it."

[Izdaari]

Quote:Liberals, as you say, who simply demand more government to solve personal and social ills, are not suggesting the values I've listed above, nor the outcomes that should follow from their implication.That's right, DH, they aren't. They're just growing government, which as Mr. P. points out, a good many of what passes for conservatives these days are doing too. And while government does have its uses, it is, like fire, a good servant and a bad master.I have no problem at all with participating in politics and "engaging government", nor do I have nearly as much problem with the kind of leftism you're talking about as I do with establishment liberalism.

[Mr. P]

Bush is a neo-con...his crew is attempting to control government and insinuate it into our lives like no administration before him...and not necessarily to help and 'promote the general welfare' like our constitution envisioned government doing.Dont inject 'liberals' into the neo-con crowd, for that is just nonesense. Santorum, Ridge, Brownback and the rest are anything but liberal in any way.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Izdaari]

I'm not sure about Ridge, but Brownback and Santorum aren't neocons at all, but traditionalist conservatives like Sean Hannity.You ever checked out the history of neoconservatism, Mr. P.? Doesn't sound like it. Here's a good article by Irving Kristol, one of the guys who started it all: www.weeklystandard.com/Co...0tzmlw.aspAs one of the last of the Goldwater Republicans (no contradiction between that and being a libertarian, since Goldwater was never really a conservative, but a hawkish libertarian like me), I'd be one of those "older, traditional elements in the Republican party" that Kristol is referring to. And yes, like Ron Paul, I work with both the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party, as appropriate and expedient. Edited by: Izdaari  at: 8/4/05 12:23 pm

[Mr. P]

But you do not work with the Democratic party?Neocons to me are the element in the Republican party that are trying to insinuate their values and thier values alone into the life of everyone on the planet. The ones that are trying to make government more a part of our lives, for the controlling aspect of it and not the humanitarian aspect. So maybe the word, like the word liberal, has many meanings.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Izdaari]

Unfortunately, the Democrats and I have nothing in common. They would have nothing to do with me, nor I with them. I once gave a dollar to the late Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson's campaign and he sent me Christmas cards for the next few years. That's was the last involvement I had with a Democrat politician. I liked Scoop but they don't make Democrats like that anymore.So the way you're using the term "neoconservatism" encompasses religious and traditionalist conservatives too, and I guess that means you just plain don't like conservatives. That's not what it means historically though.The original neocons were leftish intellectuals who were staunchly anti-Communist (some of them former Communists themselves), and on that basis, not feeling terribly welcome in the increasingly McGovernite Democratic Party, allied themselves with the Republicans. Commentary magazine was their home, and now the Weekly Standard. They are a distinct strain of thought within conservatism, quite different from guys like Santorum and Brownback. For one thing, neocons tend to be secular, and those two are fundies. Bush himself seems to blend the two strains but he's kind of unique.

[Mr. P]

Quote:Unfortunately, the Democrats and I have nothing in common.Funny...most humans have more in common than they like to admit. It is the inane details and emotionalism that divides us.I have much in common with "Republicans" and "Democrats" and people in general:I love my familyI need to contribute to society in many waysI need to eatI need to restI need to educate myself and my feloow manI need to be heardI need to treat others with respectWhat I do is try to work with people and treat them as I would like to be treated, and realize that we are all indeed in this together. Those who I see do not want this, but want to have power and control, I marginalize. Extreme christians, muslims, conservatives, democrats or any other label you can think of fall into this group.Quote:I guess that means you just plain don't like conservatives.You guessed wrong. I voted conservative in the past, for I am able to rise above the label of the day, something I see you are not able to do, by your comment that you have nothing in common with 'democrats'. If that is not an ignorant statement, I do not know what is.You have fallen deep into the pit of partisan despair. I hope you can climb back out.Quote:Bush...he's kind of unique. Yes...he is indeed unique...Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Izdaari]

You're reading a lot more into my comments that I intended. Perhaps you're mistaking me for Howard Dean's counterpart? You know, the guy who says Republicans are evil.Of course Democrats are fine people, and as individuals I like a good many of them, and I give each of them individually the respect they deserve. We're all human beings together. What I meant, and what I thought was obvious from the context was that today's Democratic Party and myself have so little in common so far as shared political agenda that an association with them wouldn't be productive or harmonious. That doesn't mean I won't try to cooperate with Democratic officials when we can, and we often can, just that I'm not going to their party meetings. Edited by: Izdaari  at: 8/4/05 1:37 pm

[Mr. P]

And thats why we need to move away from Party systems in our society. They are nothing short of divisive. To me, Democrats are for a strong America that cares for it's citizens...are you saying this is not the case? And Republicans are?Both parties suck...and until we learn to stop swallowing their crap, we are doomed. That said, I will offer that there are good points in both philosophies...see the difference? It is about our people (and not just americans) and what is good for people that should be the function of government. Republicans, or Democrats, do not have a stranglehold on that ideal. As usual, it is somewhere in the middle.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[Izdaari]

Quote:To me, Democrats are for a strong America that cares for it's citizens...are you saying this is not the case? Sure, they are... in their intentions. But I'm convinced their policies would lead to a weak America, subservient to the UN, that cares for its citizens far too much, to the extent of making us too dependent on Uncle Sugar and making our economy weak by excessive regulation and taxation.Quote:And Republicans are?Not to the extent I would like, no. But they're less bad than the alternative and give me enough to work with.But what policies do I really want? Barry Goldwater said it best:"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."