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.
Conservative: Regulation be damned, let's abuse the system. If it's wrong, the invisible hand will correct it. ...
By the way don't forget that everywhere else outside the US "liberal" means precisely this "regulation be damned", freemarkets come hell or high water ideology, though there it often goes by name "neo-liberal".
Our political vocabulary tends to be a bit parochial in this country.
Bill Clinton also comes to mind. And his wife. (I could have reversed that. )
Jimmy Carter is another name.
For conservatives, Richard Shelby seems to be making quite a name as a representative of that position, especially since the financial crisis. His drawling voice is frequently heard nowadays on NPR speaking on the subject.
Hmm... Okay, now we are working with something. Observation: Bill Clinton is considered to be a "liberal" and yet he reformed the welfare and got a lot of people off the dole and also championed many free trade agreements, most notable the North American Free Trade Agreement. 1st question: How is that considered "liberal"? I don't think that any person who would truly call himself a "liberal" would side with any of those policies considering the degrading of the manufacturing industry and the hemorraghing of jobs to overseas countries as a result.
2nd Observation: Richard Shelby is considered a "conservative" and yet he opposed the nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. Isn't Robert Bork the uber-conservative of conservatives? Also a person on this forum mentioned that conservatives are mainly the champions of Free markets at all costs and no Government involvement what-so-ever. Yet while he doesn't support the Government loans to the Big 3 automakers, he seem to be able to look the other way when Toyota, Hyundai and other foreign car manufacturers were able to benefit from government subsidies in Alabama.
2nd question: In light of that, can Richard Shelby really be considered a "conservative" in the sense of what considered to be the popular definition of one?
Hmm... Okay, now we are working with something. Observation: Bill Clinton is considered to be a "liberal" and yet he reformed the welfare and got a lot of people off the dole and also championed many free trade agreements, most notable the North American Free Trade Agreement. 1st question: How is that considered "liberal"? I don't think that any person who would truly call himself a "liberal" would side with any of those policies considering the degrading of the manufacturing industry and the hemorraghing of jobs to overseas countries as a result.
This is the point I was making above and it's why in Europe Clinton is viewed as the classic "neo-liberal". Because he was liberal. He was basically for liberalizing restrictions on free trade. Everywhere other than here 'liberal' is understood in economic terms.
Quote:
2nd Observation: Richard Shelby is considered a "conservative" and yet he opposed the nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. Isn't Robert Bork the uber-conservative of conservatives?
I didn't know that. Good catch. I'd be interested in knowing why.
Quote:
Also a person on this forum mentioned that conservatives are mainly the champions of Free markets at all costs and no Government involvement what-so-ever. Yet while he doesn't support the Government loans to the Big 3 automakers, he seem to be able to look the other way when Toyota, Hyundai and other foreign car manufacturers were able to benefit from government subsidies in Alabama.
2nd question: In light of that, can Richard Shelby really be considered a "conservative" in the sense of what considered to be the popular definition of one?
What's good for bidness, good for consuhvahtive princ'pls.
This is the point I was making above and it's why in Europe Clinton is viewed as the classic "neo-liberal". Because he was liberal. He was basically for liberalizing restrictions on free trade. Everywhere other than here 'liberal' is understood in economic terms.
I didn't know that. Good catch. I'd be interested in knowing why.
What's good for bidness, good for consuhvahtive princ'pls.
I find your answers interesting. I heard of "neo-liberal" and from what I know it is pretty much the same as a "classical liberal." But isn't yesterday's "classical liberal" today's conservative?
I'm am still confused as to how Bill can still be classified as a "liberal" by U.S. standards of all government all the time when matched with the fact that FTA's he supported allowed unfettered foreign access to U.S. markets with products made in countries that have little to no workplace rights or healthcare bennies?
How does the U.S. brand of "conservatism" match up with this supposed rumor that they are for less government intrusion, when some of the so-called "conservatives" have been willing to use big government when its convenient for them?
I heard of "neo-liberal" and from what I know it is pretty much the same as a "classical liberal." But isn't yesterday's "classical liberal" today's conservative?
That's exactly how I understand it. "Classical liberal". But here it's come to mean generally leftist. Which is really odd.
Quote:
I'm am still confused as to how Bill can still be classified as a "liberal" by U.S. standards of all government all the time when matched with the fact that FTA's he supported allowed unfettered foreign access to U.S. markets with products made in countries that have little to no workplace rights or healthcare bennies?
Well, to understand how this so-called 'liberal' can be considered such here, you have to understand how one typically had to behave to get elected (or at least up until the election of 2008). They had to be tough on crime, tough on welfare, be no-nonsense on racial resentment issues (see Sista Soldja incident), they absolutely positively without a shadow of a doubt had to be religious, and they pretty much had to be Southern with a nice drawl to boot (again, this rule having been somewhat disproved in '08 - this being one of many astonishing things Barack Obama did).
In other words, what I'm saying is that there's a certain amount of mimicry that's necessary for a liberal leftist to become powerful in the US (see Obama's invitation of Warren to speak at inauguration for another example). Basically, they have to send out a number of very powerful and unmistakable messages that prove that they are capable of basically acting like a conservative and that they are not going to turn the country into a communist republic. That's not a joke. Examine the campaign of Bill Clinton and you'll see that it's true.
Quote:
How does the U.S. brand of "conservatism" match up with this supposed rumor that they are for less government intrusion, when some of the so-called "conservatives" have been willing to use big government when its convenient for them?
That's a very complicated question that definitely goes beyond my pay grade. All I know is that before Bush the biggest big government president after Lyndon Johnson was Ronald Reagan. But basically after Bush II, the whole measuring stick got thrown out the window. He's the biggest big-government president we've ever had. So, as to your question about what sense it makes to argue that conservativism consists of these things, I'd say, well if you can answer that question you've got a muti-million dollor career ahead of you as a political consultant because you're in effect a genius, the next Karl Rove. For more on this debate, see [CONSERVATIVE CRACKUP].
I don't think it's real useful to use terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' to make comparisons with places in such varied regions as Chicago, Boston, Seattle. There are always some fundamental differences between what it means to be 'liberal' or progressive in places like Pacific NW, Midwest big city, Northeast, and the South, etc.
But even if we accept a definition of liberal as 'votes/supports the core Democratic party platform' I don't think I'd buy the statement that the city is significantly less liberal than a city like Chicago. But in any case you have to take the metro area as a whole, and up until recently you could make the argument that it was bluer (more supportive of Republican program) than other cities, but that appears to be changing fast.
OK...I'll qualify and clarify my statement. I have lived in NYC, outside Boston, and I have lived in Seattle for business for weeks at a time.
Atlanta does not have the "tax and spend" mentality the way these other cities and their corresponding states do. Raising taxes and fees is usually the first choices, not the last resort in those other places. Political correctness is close to out of control in these cities. Not so in Atlanta to the same degree.
There are other specifics that differentiate Atlanta from these other cities. Sure, there may be "liberals," "progressives," "Democrats" or whatever else you want to call them in Atlanta, but you don't have that overwhelming left leaning effect that's present in northeastern cities or places like Seattle. In those other places, being conservative is like having the plague. You are literally looked at as having some kind of problem.
Those of you who have lived in those other places know what I mean.
OK...I'll qualify and clarify my statement. I have lived in NYC, outside Boston, and I have lived in Seattle for business for weeks at a time.
Atlanta does not have the "tax and spend" mentality the way these other cities and their corresponding states do. Raising taxes and fees is usually the first choices, not the last resort in those other places. Political correctness is close to out of control in these cities. Not so in Atlanta to the same degree.
There are other specifics that differentiate Atlanta from these other cities. Sure, there may be "liberals," "progressives," "Democrats" or whatever else you want to call them in Atlanta, but you don't have that overwhelming left leaning effect that's present in northeastern cities or places like Seattle. In those other places, being conservative is like having the plague. You are literally looked at as having some kind of problem.
Those of you who have lived in those other places know what I mean.
I'll put my cards on the table and say what I really mean here. The major reason it's hard to compare Atlanta liberalism with that in say Seattle or Chicago is the reality of race. That factor - at least historically - has played such an all-encompassing role in politcal and cultural life in the South, even in the urban South like Atlanta, that it effectively scrambles questions so that no matter what issue you're looking at, if you examine it closely you can see the unmistakable signs of the race issue. Crime, taxes, and transportation are just the most obvious examples.
A city like Seattle or Portland just doesn't have that historical baggage, so of course the do-gooders there can harp all day long about this or that grievance without having to 'step up to the plate', if you will, in quite the same way. These things take on a different meaning there.
Chicago and NYC are obviously closer to Atlanta in at least having substantial minority blocs, but even in these cities that issue was at least partially subsumed under other issues such as labor politics, urbanism, and so forth and thus took on a different character in those places. Of course, not to say there wasn't tension. To some extent you might say the race issue in the North got 'diffused', though obviously not solved - not by a long shot. So there race took a different course than in the South where, as always, its role was paramount.
By the way, I totally agree with you about political correctness in places like the Northwest. I would say that in this case a European style militant secularism is more pronounced than it is here.
That's exactly how I understand it. "Classical liberal". But here it's come to mean generally leftist. Which is really odd.
Well, to understand how this so-called 'liberal' can be considered such here, you have to understand how one typically had to behave to get elected (or at least up until the election of 2008). They had to be tough on crime, tough on welfare, be no-nonsense on racial resentment issues (see Sista Soldja incident), they absolutely positively without a shadow of a doubt had to be religious, and they pretty much had to be Southern with a nice drawl to boot (again, this rule having been somewhat disproved in '08 - this being one of many astonishing things Barack Obama did).
In other words, what I'm saying is that there's a certain amount of mimicry that's necessary for a liberal leftist to become powerful in the US (see Obama's invitation of Warren to speak at inauguration for another example). Basically, they have to send out a number of very powerful and unmistakable messages that prove that they are capable of basically acting like a conservative and that they are not going to turn the country into a communist republic. That's not a joke. Examine the campaign of Bill Clinton and you'll see that it's true.
That's a very complicated question that definitely goes beyond my pay grade. All I know is that before Bush the biggest big government president after Lyndon Johnson was Ronald Reagan. But basically after Bush II, the whole measuring stick got thrown out the window. He's the biggest big-government president we've ever had. So, as to your question about what sense it makes to argue that conservativism consists of these things, I'd say, well if you can answer that question you've got a muti-million dollor career ahead of you as a political consultant because you're in effect a genius, the next Karl Rove. For more on this debate, see [CONSERVATIVE CRACKUP].
Okay, I'll buy that.
As a person who live in the south my whole life, I've found it very interesting that those shout "conservative" the loudest always seems to be the ones who are forced to deal too closely with "diversity" for their liking.
I don't have a problem with conservative ideology mind you. In reality I think that there are parts of "conservatism" that I would like to be practiced more. I also wish that those who preach it and its tenets would practice it a little bit more rather then just scream about it when change becomes too much for them to handle.
I'll put my cards on the table and say what I really mean here. The major reason it's hard to compare Atlanta liberalism with that in say Seattle or Chicago is the reality of race. That factor - at least historically - has played such an all-encompassing role in politcal and cultural life in the South, even in the urban South like Atlanta, that it effectively scrambles questions so that no matter what issue you're looking at, if you examine it closely you can see the unmistakable signs of the race issue. Crime, taxes, and transportation are just the most obvious examples.
A city like Seattle or Portland just doesn't have that historical baggage, so of course the do-gooders there can harp all day long about this or that grievance without having to 'step up to the plate', if you will, in quite the same way. These things take on a different meaning there.
Chicago and NYC are obviously closer to Atlanta in at least having substantial minority blocs, but even in these cities that issue was at least partially subsumed under other issues such as labor politics, urbanism, and so forth and thus took on a different character in those places. Of course, not to say there wasn't tension. To some extent you might say the race issue in the North got 'diffused', though obviously not solved - not by a long shot. So there race took a different course than in the South where, as always, its role was paramount.
By the way, I totally agree with you about political correctness in places like the Northwest. I would say that in this case a European style militant secularism is more pronounced than it is here.
Hmm, that's a great point. Let's see if my slow southern brain can process this:
If I got this right you're saying that it's easy for those "liberals" in the Northwest to prescibe big government progressive solutions to the rest of country especially the south, when they are not forced to deal with wild card known as "race" and the effects that big government has had in that area.
Because if those northwestern 'liberals" see the potential for misuse of those govt bennies and the fact that those misusing are of a different "culture" then they might not be so tolerant of doling out those govt dolars so easily. Am I halfway there?
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.
)
