Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or, have you switched sides from globalist to nationalist, or nationalist to globalist, which is the paradigm that appears to have replaced the ideological contest between "conservatives" and "liberals"?
If you prefer to think you are not either a globalist or a nationalist, then looking at the question from that point of view, how would you characterize your perspective along these lines?
One day, practically everything is going to be automated. One day, most people will be able to be pretty much on a pemanent vacation and machines will provide our day to day needs. Farms, lumber, factories, distribution, etc will all be practically 100% automated.
However, there will be that painful gap where automation takes away most jobs while not being to the point of providing for most needs. We are really just entering the beginning of that curve.
I wonder if the US would be better off in the global economy or a nationalistic closed economy. I can see arguments on both sides. Either way we go is going to be a rocky path with a lot of social uphevel, and no matter which way we go, people will think we took the wrong path.
This newest generation is going to encounter some very turbulent times.
In the 90s and 2000s, I was definitely a liberal because of the almost hardcore christian slant of conservatives.
Religion has no place in politics.
Politics has no place in the bedroom.
Republicans at the time seemed to want the government to stay out of their pocketbook, but they wanted to parent you on anything they deemed "immoral".
But then, 2008 rolled around, and people like SJWs and radical feminists appeared(or at least started getting taken seriously). They changed the face of the Democratic party and started believing in stupid things like "privilege". Racists movements like BLM also appeared recently, and have a strong support from Liberals.
I just can't stand the "it's ok to be racist and a misogynist if you don't like white men" attitude that most liberals seem to have today.
I also took an economics class and realized that government wasn't the solution, but the problem.
I'm not a Republican at all, nor a Democrat. I believe there's too much cronyism on both sides. Neither look out for the interest of the average citizen.
There is a long list of things that people have argued as causal factors in the collapse of the housing market and people will be debating the relative importance of those causes for the next hundred years. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that the predominant cause was a market failure resulting from insufficient regulation, i.e. that the government failed in properly regulating credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, for example.
Why would that cause you to completely switch ideologies? I don't know of any classical liberal who believes in no regulation of markets. Free markets cannot exist without regulation, it is a necessary condition for their existence. You cannot have free markets without a governing body of some sort or another (typically government) which sets the rules, enforces contracts, polices fraud, etc.
Furthermore, if the housing market collapse caused you to become a socialist, why haven't the numerous failures of socialist governments that have occurred throughout history not caused you to abandon socialism? Why hasn't this failure of government to properly regulate the housing market not caused you to question your faith in government, but has instead seemingly strengthened it?
The housing market collapsed because of 2 reasons (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton), one gave birth to, and the other reinvigorated the "Community Redevelopment Act" which forced lenders to give mortgages to non-credit worthy borrowers.
The majority of liberals and conservatives want most of the same results but have different means of getting there. Conservatives generally feel that people should have the same opportunities and put the burden of the results on the individual, while liberals feel a very involved government is requir d to get us there.
It appears to me that over the last few hundred years, governments tend to cause too many problems when they are overly involved, and they have a habit of some degree of tyranny.
In general, conservatives understand that there will never be equal outcomes for everyone, while liberals are extremely bothered by this reality. They see government as a tool to rectify the differences in outcomes that naturally come about when people have varying degrees of ability. At the same time, many liberals insist that people actually are equal and don't have any real differences, so they concoct elaborate theories to explain away the obvious differences in outcomes. And many of these theories are toxic to society, which is why we are seeing this massive pushback by the right.
It is the ideology called Progressivism, and it is a Cancer on society. It has taken over the DemocRats.
People like you are why I will not vote Republican in the near future. If conservatives were all about making government more efficient and less burdensome I'd certainly vote for them over any liberal candidate. Instead, they point fingers, blame minorities and women for societies problems, and try to remove ladders to prosperity and inclusion.
So, as long as Republicans keep acting like perpetual victims in a diverse society, pandering to the Christian right, there is no way I could idenify as a conservative. And, Democrats are not even close to being a cancer to society.
The housing market collapsed because of 2 reasons (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton), one gave birth to, and the other reinvigorated the "Community Redevelopment Act" which forced lenders to give mortgages to non-credit worthy borrowers.
Many seem to forget Bush Jr's role in the housing collapse as well. He made a big push for increased home ownership, especially among Blacks and Hispanics. He supported many of the policies set forth by the Community Redevelopment Act and pushed banks to take on risky loans with low down payments and little documentation. He called himself the "compassionate conservative," which basically made him a liberal when it came to social policy.
People like you are why I will not vote Republican in the near future. If conservatives were all about making government more efficient and less burdensome I'd certainly vote for them over any liberal candidate. Instead, they point fingers, blame minorities and women for societies problems, and try to remove ladders to prosperity and inclusion.
So, as long as Republicans keep acting like perpetual victims in a diverse society, pandering to the Christian right, there is no way I could idenify as a conservative. And, Democrats are not even close to being a cancer to society.
I think the Republicans are a terrible party. Many rightly call them the stupid party. My reasons for disliking the Republicans are probably very different from yours though. I dislike them for adopting many of the toxic ideas that Democrats champion. The further the Republicans move away from Democrats, the better the party will be.
edit: Johnson, apparently......so I was wrong that mortgage securitization was a market failure and not attributable to either political party; this one is on the Democrats, which contradicts my prior belief but isn't surprising:
It's a pretty big stretch to say that giving mortgages to moderate income families starting in 1968 caused a crash 40 years later. All of the predatory lending and impossibly bad investments disguised as safe bets that were being bought up by major banks as if it was raining money didn't happen until much much later...
There is a long list of things that people have argued as causal factors in the collapse of the housing market and people will be debating the relative importance of those causes for the next hundred years. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that the predominant cause was a market failure resulting from insufficient regulation, i.e. that the government failed in properly regulating credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, for example.
I can't form a debate on either side of that argument, because while it is a true statement, it is insufficient insofar as explanations go.
Quote:
Why would that cause you to completely switch ideologies? I don't know of any classical liberal who believes in no regulation of markets. Free markets cannot exist without regulation, it is a necessary condition for their existence. You cannot have free markets without a governing body of some sort or another (typically government) which sets the rules, enforces contracts, polices fraud, etc.
You're presenting the two choices of "more regulated" and "less regulated." I believe this to be a forced, flawed dichotomy. Quantity of regulation is not the cause or solution to the crisis.
Quote:
Furthermore, if the housing market collapse caused you to become a socialist, why haven't the numerous failures of socialist governments that have occurred throughout history not caused you to abandon socialism?
Because I'm only a socialist within the context of U.S. politics, much in the way that conservatives are only conservative within the context of U.S. politics.
Imagine if I asked conservatives , "Why are you a conservative, given the numerous historical failures of monarchism?" It would be a silly question, because while monarchies are a relevant topic to global conservativism, they aren't relevant to U.S. politics or American conservatives.
We, as Americans, operate within an existing framework of a classically liberal democratic republic. I'm a socialist within that context. Therefore bringing global politics into the discussion is only useful in a very limited sense.
Furthermore -- it is a question of practicality. I believe in the 'pendulum' concept. I believe the pendulum has swung too far towards a very specific type of right-wing libertarianism that is a perversion of its root ideology.
Quote:
Why hasn't this failure of government to properly regulate the housing market not caused you to question your faith in government, but has instead seemingly strengthened it?
You're again focused on the size of government as the important variable, when it is only a red herring.
What appeals to me about socialism is the role they expect government to play in society. Size of government is irrelevant to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
