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.
Not a decent definition of Liberalism at all. The appropriate turn-around would be "Liberalism is marked by reverence for the individual - in that every individual is valued equally. There is no 'ruling class' that is worth reverence."
Start with that. No doubt you could do the same thing.
Here is the thing about that..
There is no way that each individual could ever be valued equally in a society. It is a nice thought, and is the way things would be in a Utopian society. Unfortunately, we live in a world where it is necessary to have those who are rich and those who are poor. Even the most hardened of socialist countries still have large class divides.
Liberalism is a focus on the collective and the community as a whole, NOT the individual component. Libertarians and Conservatives focus primarily on the individual.
Conservatism is marked by reverence for authority (which authority includes the dominant classes in society as well as the dominant moral code). "Change" is a threat to those values.
"Family values" is just a recent PR move by the GOP to keep citizens voting against their best interests.
Well said. Many conservatives are marked by their servility. Which is OK for the guy on top and I can understand his being conservative but I don't understand why anyone whose name isn't over the door would be conservative. I reckon some people are just wired to be followers, an evolution thing.
I think you are viewing conservatism as a static mindset. After all, traditional values means different things even amongst conservatives. Really, I think the proper way to put it would be conservative values. As someone who holds conservative values I look at life like this: pull your weight.
And....that really is about it. If everyone pulled their weight, life would be better for everyone. There would be less government intrusion, people would be able to keep more of the money they earned, social problems would cease if more people worked hard whether it be at school or at a job. Pulling your weight would also encompass social nicities such as charity and more mundane things like respecting your neighbors and all those around you.
Will never happen I know....but that is basically how I live my life.
Now as to tradional values that would be the religious right talking. And I really have no use for them or their jihadist like desire to turn the US into a christian theocracy.
That's my view of conservative and traditional values. I also believe in nationalism, strong military, protection of our borders, and one official language.
Since conservatives tend to be labeled traditionalists and liberals tend to be labled progessives, I've often wondered what do conservatives see in traditional values.
I mean what does that even mean "I have traditional values". Does that mean you want to go back to a time when blacks had to drink from separate fountains...or further back to when they were slaves. To a time when women couldn't vote? A time when the average worker made pennies on the dollar? I know the obvious answer...traditional family values but what about all these other controversies throughout the years.
Was Martin Luther King a traditionalist? How about Lincoln or even the founding fathers? I think their ideas were radically progressive for their respective times.
Our country has become what it is today because of liberal, progressive social ideas. So what say you conservatives? Why do you believe traditional values are best for this country when this is a historically failed viewpoint?
In my view, your theory is bunk:
1. None of those you have mentioned was aver a "liberal." The "progressives" of today are nothing but extreme liberals.
2. A lot of conservatives, and Republicans voted for Obama.
3. A lot of "liberal" Obama voters also voted against same-sex marriage in CA, and such as view is mostly conservative or religious in nature.
I think you are viewing conservatism as a static mindset. After all, traditional values means different things even amongst conservatives. Really, I think the proper way to put it would be conservative values. As someone who holds conservative values I look at life like this: pull your weight.
And....that really is about it. If everyone pulled their weight, life would be better for everyone. There would be less government intrusion, people would be able to keep more of the money they earned, social problems would cease if more people worked hard whether it be at school or at a job. Pulling your weight would also encompass social nicities such as charity and more mundane things like respecting your neighbors and all those around you.
Will never happen I know....but that is basically how I live my life.
Now as to tradional values that would be the religious right talking. And I really have no use for them or their jihadist like desire to turn the US into a christian theocracy.
Ah, good Point! I wasn't trying to pigeonhole all conservatives as traditionalists but to focus on the traditionalist conservatives.
Yeah, right. No followers among the Democrats. All independent thinkers. They just all happen tio think alike.
Perhaps alike but not alike and servile. Democrats are noted for standing up; whether to the boss or to bigots, yes, in refusing to be lickspittles we think alike.
Conservatives are usually either the boss (which I can respect) or those who kow-tow to the boss (which I can't respect). Which are you?
Well said. Many conservatives are marked by their servility. Which is OK for the guy on top and I can understand his being conservative but I don't understand why anyone whose name isn't over the door would be conservative. I reckon some people are just wired to be followers, an evolution thing.
So what do you call Obama followers? conservative?
1. None of those you have mentioned was aver a "liberal." The "progressives" of today are nothing but extreme liberals.
2. A lot of conservatives, and Republicans voted for Obama.
3. A lot of "liberal" Obama voters also voted against same-sex marriage in CA, and such as view is mostly conservative or religious in nature.
1. Why is it bunk? You'd say granting women the right to vote was a traditionalist idea for that time period? If it wasn't liberal then what was it. Same for civil rights?
2. I'm not saying conservatives are racists or only tow the party line. I was speaking on specific conservatives that believe in traditional values.
3.) Fair enough...but what does that have to do with my question? It doesn't make traditionalists any more progressive in same-sex marriage laws.
So what do you call Obama followers? conservative?
I would call them fed up with the BS!
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.
