A Liberal's Attempt to Understand the Conservative Mind

[Tech_Esq]

C-man, IMHO this is too much for one thread.

Well, I guess I can see that. But I didn't know how else to do it. Start fifty threads - one thread for each point?

I hope you know that there are very few conservatives here who really know what they're talking about, and those are the smarter ones who probably don't spend a lot of time here anyway. So you're going to get a bunch of rants about liberals, and nothing about conservatives other than the usual ideological platitudes and Randisms. It's too bad, because it's a worthwhile topic.

And after this statement and then seeing my responses to the sets of questions, you didn't choose to engage on any point?

Interesting.

 

[Maple]

it even gives what liberals beleive in.

http://marklevinfan.com/?p=1681

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, I guess I can see that. But I didn't know how else to do it. Start fifty threads - one thread for each point?

I hope you know that there are very few conservatives here who really know what they're talking about, and those are the smarter ones who probably don't spend a lot of time here anyway. So you're going to get a bunch of rants about liberals, and nothing about conservatives other than the usual ideological platitudes and Randisms. It's too bad, because it's a worthwhile topic.

And after this statement and then seeing my responses to the sets of questions, you didn't choose to engage on any point?

Interesting.

I never spend an entire evening on message boards, so I didn't have time. At some point, I'll go back and read your comments. It looks like you put a lot into them.

 

[Si modo]

….
Social conservatism: ….

With the assumption that there is honest interest in trying to refrain from kneejerk pigeonholing (not you, but others), I am pleased to answer.

C-Man: Do social conservatives think abortion shouldn't be legal, or is it that they think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should determine whether to allow abortions or not? Should those states have a referendum to determine the legality of abortions?
Si: I am pro-choice. Abortion should be legal (much more to iscuss on this issue, though).

C-man: Social conservatives think same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal.
Si: Either same sex marriage is legal, or the state gets out of marriage completely.

C-man: Many social conservatives think that homosexuality should be illegal.
Si: Homosexuality should not be illegal.

C-man: Social conservatives want to allow prayer in public schools.
Si: I want no censoring in public schools. I also want no government funded promotion of religion. Prayer should not be forbidden, nor should it be promoted.

C-man: Social conservatives want to allow the teaching of creationism in public schools.
Si: No teaching of creationism in any science class. Teaching of the major religions in social studies classes. I want our students informed and censoring is anathema to that.

C-man: Many social conservatives don't want evolution taught in public schools.
Si: See answer above.

C-man: Social conservatives want to keep marijuana illegal.
Si: I honestly don’t care in the least. No fan of stoners, but that's their choice to be morons.

C-man: Social conservatives want stricter sentences for crimes than we have now.
Si: This would be a thread topic in and of itself. I will say I am against the death penalty.

C-man: Social conservatives want to deport all illegal immigrants and have stricter illegal immigration laws, stricter legal immigration laws, and more protection of US borders.
Si: Again, no simple answer, but I will try. Deport all? No. Stricter laws? No, but more efficient laws based on USA needs. More protection at borders? Absolutely (complete freedom out; much, much more protection in).

C-man: Social conservatives want all US citizens to speak the English as the official US language.
Si: Not I. Each has his/her own choice to speak a language that will make their life easier here or not. But eliminate that bullshit and enabling bilingual shit. No, I do not want to press 1 for English – it reminds me of those who lack initiative to help themselves.

C-man: Social conservatives think that the government should be better aligned with Christian ideals.
Si: Too general of a question. Forbidding murder is a Judeo-Christian ideal and it is counter to the principle of life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. So, perspective is involved. Keep religious ideals out of laws if they are counter to our founding principles (which is redundant in itself). But, if the laws don’t protect me from thieves simply because some paranoid anti-religion whacko says it’s a Commandment, forget it.

C-man: Social conservatives think that US culture should be better aligned with Christian ideals.
Si: The day my country starts legislating culture is the day I should consider Communist China as a reasonable relocation option. Culture will be what it is in equilibrium with the demographics of our society.

C-man: Social conservatives tend to think that state universities and colleges are staffed mostly with liberal professors and administration.
Si: Most are. Some aren’t. Thus not all.

C-man: Social conservatives think that police are generally good people with a tough job and that excuses the rare occurrences when police may behave overly brutal or when they seem abusive of their authority.
Si: All citizens are equal under the law. No privileges to any.

C-man: Social conservatives think that democracy is the best system of government for all peoples and all cultures around the world; and if democracy was world-wide there would be fewer wars.
Si: Absolutely.

C-man: Social conservatives think the war in Iraq is justified.
Si: Too broad and too general. I have no simple answer.

C-man: Social conservatives think the war in Afghanistan is justified.
Si: Absolutely. Fuck the Taliban. Fuck anyone who enables terrorist pigs and pieces of shit against my country.

C-man: Social conservatives think that there should be more faith-based initiatives.
Si: Sure, if they meet the grant requirements.

C-man: Social conservatives think that the Constitution is not a living document.
Si: “Living document”? The Constitution is rock solid. If we need amendments, the rock-solid Constitution allows for that. The Constitution is not open to Newspeak redefinitions. It’s crystal clear and anytime it is not, the SCOTUS has the authority to clarify (and they seem to forget that they need to take ALL of the Constitution into consideration...but, we get the appointments we deserve when partisanship is all that comes in play in place of founding principles).

C-man: Social conservatives think that racism is a thing of the past and no longer a salient issue in modern politics.
Si: No to the first. To the second, no person's race (gender, sexual orientation, or anything over which they haven’t a choice) is relevant in politics and few other things.

 

[MaggieMae]

Social conservatism:

Do social conservatives think abortion shouldn't be legal, or is it that they think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should determine whether to allow abortions or not? Should those states have a referendum to determine the legality of abortions?

a. Some think (my guess about 25%-30%) that abortion is murder and murder should not be legal. This stems from their closely held belief that life begins at conception. This contra to the previously held belief by conservatives that there was a "quickening," or a moment when the the fetus received a soul, and that was when life began. Science has shown that the fetus looks like a baby at a very early stage so you can blame this one on scientific advance.

b. Yes, it is a commonly held view by conservatives that Roe is bad law. Few conservative lawyers would hold the postion that Roe should be overturned though. It is a more typical legal thought that Griswold v. Connecticut is the offending case that should be overturned. Roe relies on Griswold and would be overturned de facto if Griswold were overturned. The reason conservatives believe that Griswold is bad law is because the SCOTUS made up a new fundamental right (the right to privacy) that is nowhere to be found in the actual text of the Constitution. The problem with this is that the unwritten right to privacy can come into tension with the written rights of the bill of rights. If they had not "created" a new right, then it would be no contest, the written right would trump the unwritten "desire." Now in abortion clinic protest trials the right to privacy comes in conflict with the right to assembly and free speech. Which should win?

c. Yes, conservatives generally believe that it is better for the states to decide issues such as abortion. I don't think there is any collective opinion on the mechanism at the state so long as it is legislative and democratic in charater rather than oligarchic and judicial.

Social conservatives think same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

I believe this is a true statement. They believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

(My personal position on this is that the state does not have the right to decide what "marriage" is. The concept of marriage is religious not civil. Government "recognized" the religious institution of marriage and its common strictures and codified some, but they did not create it. Since it was not created by government, it cannot be changed by government. That doesn't mean it cannot create something else and say "all rights had by married people are to be enjoyed by those who are (fill in the blank civil unions et al.)


I don't think this is a widely held position. There is probably a less than 20% (maybe less then 10%) that think something like this.


This probably a fair statement. Although the end is probably something less than liberals like to demonize it to be. One wonders why people are forbidden to do something as innocuous as praying. (This coming from a pagan, not a christian).


I believe this is advocated by maybe half of the conservatives. Mostly just in those circles that are strongly socially conservative. Usually it is advocated that "intelligent design" be taught as a possible alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. Some liberals seem to be strongly into turning it into an iron law of evolution. The science is the science and if science cannot prove it, it is a theory and only a theory. A stand that attempts to make more of it than it is is itself engaging in religion.



I haven't heard that one before.



I can't imagine social conservatives advocating drug use. So they would probably be against any intoxicants including alcohol, generally. But, they would probably tolerate alcohol use.


A good example of what social conservatives want with respect to criminal punishment can be found in Virginia. We've enacted truth in sentencing laws. If you send someone away for 20 years, he serves no less than 18.5 years. The issue was that juries were confused by the old sentencing rules that allowed criminals to get out after only serving a fraction of their sentence.

Project Exile - you commit a crime with a gun, you get an automatically harsher sentence. This is the answer to gun control advocates. You don't need to control guns, you need to control criminals who use guns. It has had a tremendous effect in reducing gun crime in VA.

Three strikes (applied to violent crime) - you commit three violent crime, you go to jail for life.

Death penalty - we have it and we use it. It doesn't take 25 years on death row for us to do it either. The DC Sniper is set for lethal injection Nov. 10th. That's 8 years after the crimes he commited. That's about average.



In a perfect world, yes the illegals would be deported, but that's the not the big point. In the end, how current illegals are dealt with is probably negotiable based on the practicalities of the situation. The larger point is that the law must be enforced. Measures must be taken to enforce the border and prevent illegal immigration by anyone. The security and economic considerations cannot be overstated. It is malfeasance to fail to take strong measures to prevent unlawful immigration.

Note, this applies only to illegal immigration. Have as much legal immigration as makes sense understanding the economic impact on low wage earners and the social service provision requirements. Probably a balanced low income, to skilled high income immigration policy is best for the economy to allow as many immigrants as possible. But, it can only be rational once there is control over the border. Until that happens, you don't know what your immigration policy is.



I guess. It really only makes sense for the government not to spend the excessive amount of resources to give those who are not interested in joining this country enough that they learn the language the capability enjoy the benefits without putting in some effort. I'd put this in the social and fiscal categories.


Ideals? Maybe ideals. I'd have to hear you expand on what you mean by this question.

I think by definition. Since the development of the United States was based on the Judeo-Christian ethic and conservatives stand for incremental change, one would assume that the socially conservative position would be that the culture of the US should more closely resemble the Judeo-Christian ethics that existed prior to the counter-culture "revolution."



This isn't really up for question. During my 7 years of involvement on college campi in the US, I found zero professors who self-identified as Republican or Conservative. Now, one might understand that at American University in DC, but not at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. There may be conservative professors someplace, but if there are, they are in bunkers, surrounded and outnumbered.



Not really. The first part of the statement is true. The second part, a bit over the top. I would say that in those episodes that involve "police abuse of power" that conservatives are more apt to want to hear the other side (from the police) because they hold out the possibility that there might have been some mitigating circumstance. (Much as the liberal does for a criminal).

But, absent some mitigating factor, I think the conservative is just as willing to put away bad cops, and probably in harsher circumstances, than the liberal who jumps to the conclusion of police guilt.



Now we play Seasame Street. Which of these things is not like the others. This is a neo-conservative position. As we should all know by now, the neo-cons developed out of disillusioned communists and socialists of the 1940s. Mr. Kristol describe Neo-cons as liberals mugged by reality. So, you notice a distinctly unconservative mentality behind neo-conservative thought. (Or, at least you should).

While I would agree that allowing the governed a strong voice in their governance is probably the best way (democracy) I'd listen to the argument for something else. I do believe that arguments that say one or another race/culture is not able to have democracy is an inherently racist position.



Again, I think this a neo-con position.

My position is that in the face of what was occurring in 2002, there were a set of bad choices. I also think that among these bad choices, the neo-cons made the choice to depose Saddam look less bad than it really was. The fact was that the coalition that was keeping Saddam in check was shaking apart. Between the corruption in the oil for food program, we now know about, and the efforts by the French and others to get around the sanctions to the forthright statements by several of the allies that continued efforts to enforce the sanctions would not be forthcoming in 2003 and beyond, it was clear that either the US would be left holding a hole-ridden bag or it could go to war.

Layered upon this was the question about how to engage a "hot war" with the Jihadist elements in the Muslim world. We clearly understood that these elements were mobile as the wars first in Afghanistan, later in Bosnia etc., showed that Jihadis will travel the world (our at least that corner of it) to engage their enemies. Then, layered on top of that was the geo-political question of dividing Iran from Syria and neutralizing Iraq as a bad actor in the process. (The neo-cons also added the possibility of turning Iraq into a successful democracy and putting pressure on the surrounding countries, but that is a 50 year proposition and too much to consider here).

So, while it was poorly executed, at least in part, the war was not an entirely bad idea. It was a selection from a list of bad choices. Taken over a 20 year period, I'm unsure which course would be more expensive.



Only radicals think this war is unjust. The question is the war's length. This is a tough tactical and strategic question. No large army has ever been successful in Afghanistan. Increasing troop strength is a double edged sword to say the least. But, that doesn't aswer the justification question.

A conservative would justify this war by saying that the US has the right to self-defense. We were attacked by the inhabitants of that corner of the world and we have the right to counter-attack if the government there is not willing or able to exert the control over the people in the confines of their nation-state. We have done so and are continuing to execute that mission. The justification, nor the mission, has changed.



Don't know.

Social conservatives think that the Constitution is not a living document.

Documents do not live, people do. The Constitution was written in a sufficiently general format that general functions and characters of governance were defined for the federal government. While there is a great leap in technology between wagons and sailing ships and jet planes and long haul truckers, the basic and fundemental principles in Article I, Section 8 clearly provide for both of these eventualities and for Congress' proper authority to do so.

Where people have difficulty is when they are trying to do something that the Constitution does not allow and feel constrained. Well, that's because you shouldn't be fucking doing that.....how bout that?

Now, if everyone thinks it's a good idea for government to do that particular bit of business, well the founders were geniuses they provided an amendment process to add that puppy right in there. In fact, we've done so 27 times. Now, we've been pretty lazy over the last few decades about having any amendments. My guess is because we've just let the oligarchical SCOTUS amend the Constitution for us. A VERY DANGEROUS path.

Social conservatives think that racism is a thing of the past and no longer a salient issue in modern politics.

I think that is a bit of a stretch. The point conservatives are trying to make here is that there was institutional racism throughout America. We have made significant progress in wringing that racism from our systems. This needs to be recognized. The people saying it is just as bad or worse than it was in 1970 are making asses of themselves.

Everyone understands that racism still exists. But the conservatives will point out that it is no longer institutionally based. So, the policy position is that mechanisms that were put in place to wring racism from the system need to be re-examined to determine whether they are designed to meet the needs of today. Does it get at those areas where racism still exists.

(I'll tell a story here. I live in the DC area. I work with 99.6% black co-workers. I went to Houston a couple of years ago, looking at moving down there. We went to a real estate agent to look at areas to move. Here, we encountered racism like we were not used seeing. This guy was definitely redlining. You want to look here and here, but I don't think you would be comfortable looking in this area or that one. Our jaws nearly hit the table. You would never see anything like that out here.) So yes, racism exists, but it isn't everywhere and we have made significant progress. It's not that it isn't an issue, but it's not the same issue it once was.

I did read all of your responses, and I was very impressed. I basically agree with everything you said, which was stated logically and rationally without a hint of finger-pointing. If only there were more like you whose conservative voices could be heard over the din of the fringers these days.

I only have two points to make:

Regarding school prayer, I don't think there's an intent to DENY prayer in school but as the country has become more religiously diverse, using only Christian prayers is seen as a form of discrimination.

On liberal professors, I think that assumption is overblown, although I don't doubt that on many campuses that is the case (Berkely, for instance). All I have to back that up, however, is my own experience where my English professor never injected an opinion as to a particular author's political intent of the time; the class merely had animated discussions over the compelling societal mores which led an author to his/her passions to write what they did. On the other hand, my political science professors tended to lecture first on ideological differences on everything from Straussism to Marxism and it was the students who then debated the merits of each. And yes, there were conservatives and liberals and a few in between, and a LOT who didn't know anything at all about political history until they reached those classes.

Good job, Tech!!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Maggie,

Thanks for taking the time to read all of that.....lol.

You may be right that there is no intent to DENY a person's ability to pray in school, but even such neutral things as a moment of silent reflection have been struck down by the courts as establishment of religion. I think the courts are being absurd by going that far. As I stated, I'm a pagan, but as long as I'm not forced to say something I don't believe in, I'm fine with other people doing their thing as long as it doesn't disrupt the good order of the class and is kept to a minimal period of time.

My information isn't a lot better than yours, but I just found this:

As liberal columnist Paul Krugman conceded in The New York Times, "It's a fact . . . that registered Republicans and self-proclaimed conservatives make up only a small minority of professors at elite universities." A significant body of research confirms Krugman's observation. For instance, a recent survey by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) examined the phenomenon of political bias among faculty at 32 elite colleges and universities, where it found 1,397 professors who were registered Democrats and only 134 who were registered Republicans -- a ratio greater than 10 to 1. Another CSPC study found that at 10 major law schools in the U.S., 430 professors were registered Democrats and 53 were registered Republicans -- a ratio of more than 8 to 1.

Source

I'm only posting that because it does cite sources for it's info. Normally, I would conclude that site looked too sketchy to link to.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, I didn't exactly go to what would be an "elite" college, so that might explain it. An expensive one, but not ivy league.

 

[logical4u]

So, I've noticed that a lot of the arguments between the two ends of the political spectrum are based purely in misunderstandings. I've started this
...
When answering you may want to copy and paste starting from below here, just for clarity:

I'll start with...

Social conservatism:.

Do social conservatives think abortion shouldn't be legal, or is it that they think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should determine whether to allow abortions or not? Should those states have a referendum to determine the legality of abortions?
.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Social conservatives think same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal.
.

How can same-sex marriage promote and build society? Its very name means there will be no children of natural means, therefore society does not expand from this ideal. It is a drain on society (it encourages prime breeding stock to select a non-productive relationship).

Many social conservatives think that homosexuality should be illegal..

There should not be a law (that means bigger gov); how would the gov enforce it? It should be a matter of common sense. Acting on this temptation does nothing to improve society (similar to multiple sex partners).

Social conservatives want to allow prayer in public schools.
.

Yes, prayer in school teaches children that there are things bigger than them and that they cannot control everything in their life. One of the things helping people under extreme stress (that can lead to mental illnesses) is being taught that they cannot control every aspect of their lives. The time should be offered for a prayer everyday with the student deciding if they pray or not.

Social conservatives want to allow the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a lesson that has been handed down over thousands and thousands of years. To keep children ignorant of the way people were taught in the past will make a generation gap that is hard to overcome, and imply that children today are superior to those that were taught Creationism (making them less likely to learn from the older generations).

.

Many social conservatives don't want evolution taught in public schools.
.

Evolution should be taught is schools as a: THEORY, not fact, as it is in many schools.

Social conservatives want to keep marijuana illegal.
.

Yes, the chances of younger children using it, due to easier accessibility should be prevented. Medical purposes should be legal, but now, there is little info on how harmful this drug is (pretty much slows your life to a crawl).

Social conservatives want stricter sentences for crimes than we have now.
.

In some cases, yes. Child molestors should be terminated.
In most cases, it would just be great to have the "law" enforced.

Social conservatives want to deport all illegal immigrants and have stricter illegal immigration laws, stricter legal immigration laws, and more protection of US borders.
.

Yes, there is no way to know who is here, what diseases (contagious, or biological warfare) they have, whether they want to do work or crime, if they are here illegally. Ellis Island served as a filter to register immigrants, have them declare their purpose, and have a health screening. If people are here illegally we are telling them it is okay to break the laws that you want. (If we are going to do that, I don't want to pay taxes) Our borders are the easiest ways for people breaking the law to enter; they should be made stronger.

If we want it easier for immigrants to come here, we should change the law, not encourage "select groups" to break the law or disregard the law.

Social conservatives want all US citizens to speak the English as the official US language.
.

Yes, if we make this a "bilingual country", we will have to make acceptions for every other person that wants their language written, spoken and interpretted. If you are a mom&pop shop, you cannot afford to have people hired to interpret 130 different languages. If you want to speak a second language, great, but do not expect the taxpayers to pay for your willful ignorance.

Social conservatives think that the government should be better aligned with Christian ideals.
.

Yes, the Christian ideals are equal: everyone should follow them. They are the only set of ideals that encourage EACH individual to take responsibility for their own actions. Can you demonstrate a better set of ideals? Can you show where that worked?

Social conservatives think that US culture should be better aligned with Christian ideals.
.

See above. If each individual tries to be the best person they can be, and to treat every other individual as a gift from G*d, there would be no problem in "society".

Social conservatives tend to think that state universities and colleges are staffed mostly with liberal professors and administration.
.

Yes, experience there. I have attended 5 different colleges and found the mindset similar: we are paid from the tax base, therefore big gov is great. Children come home from school and tell you how great communism is (?). When you ask them to explain, they tell you their teacher told them. The same with homosexuality. Currently, there are staff members of schools being reprimanded for praying(?). Can you demonstrate how praying (openly or silently) ever hurt anyone?

Social conservatives think that police are generally good people with a tough job and that excuses the rare occurrences when police may behave overly brutal or when they seem abusive of their authority.
.

Not necessarily, there are several different kinds of police: good, indifferent, bad, corrupt, and criminal. Again, it is the individual that decides.

Social conservatives think that democracy is the best system of government for all peoples and all cultures around the world; and if democracy was world-wide there would be fewer wars.
.

We live in a republic. Democracies have a tendancy to work until the voters discover they can vote themselves out of house and home (and eventually country)
We believe in freedom and think the Constitution was probably the best thing ever written after the Bible. Export that government, along with the Bill of Rights (especially the second amendment where people have a right to defend themselves, their families, and their property) and watch how great the world would become.

Social conservatives think the war in Iraq is justified.
.

There is disagreement on this. Some conservatives think it was wrong to go and some think there was little choice. Regardless, most felt that once we were there, we had the obligation to finish it: victory.

Social conservatives think the war in Afghanistan is justified.
.

Again, see above. We are there. We have two choices victory or defeat. Victory means we set the extremists back (they will be hesitant to attack until they perceive us being weak again). Defeat means we accept that extremists will come into this country and hurt civilians until we subjugate ourselves to them.

Social conservatives think that there should be more faith-based initiatives.
.

The gov should be smaller and the citizen should be more important. If faith-based initiatives add to the size of gov, they should be discouraged. Large gov should be discouraged.

Social conservatives think that the Constitution is not a living document.
.

The Constitution is designed to change with ammendments. It should not be "interpreted" as something different every time a liberal re-defines a word (i.e. that depends on what the meaning of is, is). It is clear and should not be clouded to hide political agendas.

Social conservatives think that racism is a thing of the past and no longer a salient issue in modern politics.
.

We believe every single person has obstacles and problems to overcome. If you focus on those obstacles, you loose sight of your goals. Racism in politics is a diversion, nothing more. It is similar to sexism: it happens, but if you take it too personally, no employer wants you because you are bitter and cannot function. It is hard to accept racism as a major issue when you work with different nationalities and they are "making it". Again, it is up to the individual.

I'll address Fiscal Conservatism in the next post in this thread.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Coloradomtnman - sorry I didn't get back to your post last night as I wanted to do. Things kept coming up that I had to deal with. I agree with many of the statements you have made almost word for word but not all of them. I will address the ones I disagree with you on. If I don't mention one of your statements it is because I stand for it, word for word as you have written it. I do consider myself to be a "conservative".

Abortion - I have some mixed opinions of it so my answer will sound a bit odd to you. First of all, I do not believe in abortion unless there are specific health reasons involved or the fetus is the result of rape or incest. Abortion for the sake of "birth control" in my opinion is a sin. However, with all of that said, I do believe that it is a woman's right to say what goes on within her own body and not the business of me or the government. I specifically do not believe the federal or state governments should be paying for an abortion unless the fetus is the result of a crime.

I believe that both evolution and creationism should be taught in school.

I believe that one of the biggest reasons America has so many problems is because people in general have turned away from Christ. This country was founded on a belief in God and it appears to me that it is going to self distruct as a result of not believing in God any more.

I am shocked at what colleges and universities allow in the professor's behavior these days. Just about all education is geared towards liberal ideas these days.

All members of the law enforcement profession that I know personally are good decent people. However, I know that it is not that way nationwide. Police should not have a free hand to behave as they wish but should be held to professional standards and punished when they cross that line.

I believe that Democracy has worked pretty well for America but other countries should be free to govern as they see fit without interferance from the US.

I believe that the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan are justified but I do not believe they have been or at the present time are being fought wisely.

I do not believe the government should be in the faith-based initative business.

I believe that the Constitution should be followed, word for word, as it was written. If changes need to be made, those changes should be made with ammendments - not liberal interputation from Supreme Court judges. It is not a "living document" if you mean that it should be viewed as anything more than what is written.

Racism still exists in both the white and black communities. White people do not hold the monopoly on racsim. There are radical black racists in America that are just as ignorant as radical white racists.

These are my views as compared to yours. Remember, if I didn't address one of your statements it is because I believe in it as written and I did not overlook it.

 

[logical4u]

Fiscal Conservatism:

Fiscal conservatives think that the federal government and state governments generally overstep their bounds fiscally.

Yes, if you have a job making $30,000 a year, do you buy a car for $70,000?

Fiscal conservatives think that income tax isn't supported by the Constitution.

It was added in a very underhanded way, and has not been limited to a very small fraction of income as promised by the politicians of that time. Personally, I don't want the gov to know what I make/have.

Fiscal conservatives believe in a flat tax.

It seems like it would be the lesser of two evils: eliminate income tax, pay flat tax. Personally, I would prefer the national sales tax and get the gov out of my income altogether (the gov knowing allows politicians to pit citizen against citizen based on income).

Fiscal conservative believe capitalism is generally the best economic system for all peoples and cultures.

Capitalism with morals is the best economic system. If there are no morals, no system will work. This leads back to Chistian ideals (values) where the 10 Commandments apply to every person, making every person special and respectful of others.

Fiscal conservatives think there is too much governmental meddling in business and that capitalism works better when its completely unregulated. The market will regulate itself.

There must be some regulation (because those morals are questionable). That being said, the gov regulation is not that effective. It allows companies/corporations to be punished more severely after the fact. The customer is the ultimate regulator, especially today; if you have bad service and start texting, things happen.

Fiscal conservatives think that large corporations run the American economy with good reason: these are the companies which have succeeded and therefore have a right to do whatever they can to increase the bottom line, as long as it doesn't hurt US citizens.

Partially, some are very effective, others have some politicians in their pocket that protect them from unhappy consumers and competition.

Fiscal conservatives want to privatize Social Security or do away with it altogether.

Yes. This was a TAX, presented as a service. It is not sustainable as is. It must be changed or it will hurt the economy. Elimination would be better, but harder. There must be some safety net for those that choose not to invest in their future, maybe gov housing in the form of gov retirement homes? There would have to be some program put in place to go from payments for the retired to no payments.

Fiscal conservatives want to privatize Medicare/Medicaid or do away with it altogether.

Yes, but we recognize that some will always need assistance. This was presented as an optional program that has ended up as "no other choice".

Do Fiscal conservatives not want health care reform in any form?

Tort reform: limit awards to reasonable amounts, if you don't pay for service, you don't get to sue
sell health insurance across state lines
let customers decide the coverage they want: catastrophic, sex changes, basic emergencies, children, etc
tax breaks for individuals buying health insurance
medical savings accounts where patients decide medical need (that can pass to heirs)
gov clinics staffed by part time med graduates (to reduce student loans) where those that are uninsured can get medical care (not emergency)
treat illegal aliens ONCE and then send them home
if they have a child here, the child goes home with the parent, they can come back when grown

Fiscal conservatives think there shouldn't be a minimum wage: let the market settle on what the minimum wage should be.

Yes. Every time the minimum wage is increased, it makes inflation (other things' prices are increased too). When this happens, it decreases the value of the dollar and works like a pay CUT for those that have worked for promotions. Minimum wage is job entry (employee being trained). If a person has worked for years and is still making minimum wage, it is because they are not making themselves a better employee (they are not worth the pay increase).

Fiscal conservatives think that the economy should be more of a priority than the environment.

I have witnessed the "cleansing" of America. I know that this country is cleaner than it has been since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Why should we now bow down to this false god: green? There is no proof it will help anyone/anything besides politicians (taking more of our freedoms in the form of green tax). If you shut off the power to any city, there will be no running water and no sewage elimination: explain how that is better?
This country will have a reduced standard of living if it moves any closer to green. The people that live in less industrialized areas are doing their best to move towards an industialized society. It is cleaner (than open sewers), it is healthier (than dirty water and less bathing), it definitely feeds more (we have gone from having over half our population as farmers to under 3% being farmers). So yes, prosperity (as a result of individuals working) is more of a priority than reducing our standard of living (some people telling other people how THEY must live).

Fiscal conservatives think welfare should be discontinued.

Yes. Welfare by the fed gov should be discontinued. There is no accountablitiy from a system issued from DC to the rest of the country. Let the local and state govs deal with welfare. Let the local gov collect the taxes and send it to the state gov and let the state govs send it to the feds. Limit the power of the fed gov, not increase it.

Fiscal conservative think that unemployment insurance should be discontiued.

Unemployment insurance should be optional. It is a tax presented as a service. There are many in this country that will pay this tax all their working lives and never receive one cent from their payments.

Do fiscal conservatives think all social program spending should be discontinued on the Federal level and that states should handle it i.e. food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc., or do fiscal conservatives think that all social programs should be discontinued and let non-profits handle those programs with charitable donations?

Yes. If the feds control the money, who has the power? If the states were responsible, people would have more choices on where and how they wanted to live. And yes, I believe that the private sector charities would be more efficient than fed charities.

Fiscal conservatives want to get rid of Affirmative Action because institutional racism and sexism are things of the past and no longer issues in American business.

Affirmative action is institutional racism and sexism. You must be ____ (sex or race) to be considered for this job (your qualifications are not as important). Conservatives believe EVERY person is valueable as a working part of society, and have witnessed for ourselves peoples of all groups working and paying taxes and do not believe that because you happen to be some politician's pet group, that you should receive special consideration. Sexism & racism exist. So does bullying, so does hostile work environments. It is part of life. If it is against the law, file suite, otherwise confront it yourself or live with it. The rest of us have had to fight for our careers or jobs; it is part of life. Maybe when you are in charge, you will stop all the injustice, thank you.

Fiscal conservatives think we should stop our dependence on foreign oil by drilling here instead.

If we want to stabilize the price of oil, that would be the best thing to do. We can have our wells ready to pump. If we can get a better price from somewhere else, fine. If not, we can pump here and keep the price consistant. If we have wells here ready to pump, we will not be held hostage by foreign govs that want to tax the American populace (thru the UN) for the dictators' and tyrants' personal financial gain.

I know there are more than these issues for social and fiscal consertives, but in the interest of brevity.... If there some issues which I missed that you think are important to conservatives, please feel free to mention them as you are educating this card carrying commie pinko liberal.

By the way, this isn't a bait thread but an honest attempt to understand the conservative point of view.

Thanks!

 

[MaggieMae]

I believe that the Constitution should be followed, word for word, as it was written. If changes need to be made, those changes should be made with ammendments - not liberal interputation from Supreme Court judges. It is not a "living document" if you mean that it should be viewed as anything more than what is written.

Isn't that a paradox then in that Article III of the Constitution established the Supreme Court as well as gave the states authority to establish lower courts?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

BBD and Si Modo-

Sorry guys, I repped you too recently to rep you for your contributions in this thread.

If you care to I would love to read what you guys have to say about the fiscal stuff I wrote.

Si Modo- From your reply I would be hesitant categorizing you a social conservative - not that I am authority on what it really is to be a social conservative. But, considering my radical leftist ideologies, I agreed with you on the majority of your stances on those issues.

Thanks fellas.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I pleased to see that some of my preconceived notions on conservatism were wrong or inaccurate. I appreciate those of you who replied without attacking or taking my OP as partisan hackery, cause it really wasn't. What I wrote in the OP was what I actually thought, or perceived. Tech_Esq, BBD, Si Modo, logical4u thanks. I've learned and had my mind changed about what I think conservativism means. I'm still a liberal, and I don't think that I am by any means without ignorance about conservatism (as this thread is hardly an in depth, critical, analysis by an authority), but I think it will help me not have a knee-jerk reaction to some of what I read posted by conservatives anymore, at least except for the radical fringe elements.

I hope that more conservatives respond to my OP so I can get an even better idea of what the conservatives in the US really think. Most liberals are probably only exposed to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or what is shown in the news. Obviously, the creekiest wheel gets the grease so the most outspoken get the media. Perhaps what we should try to remember is that those people in the media don't necessarily represent the people they believe they represent or are portrayed to represent i.e. Limbaugh represents conservatives like Bill Maher represents liberals.

 

[MaggieMae]

I pleased to see that some of my preconceived notions on conservatism were wrong or inaccurate. I appreciate those of you who replied without attacking or taking my OP as partisan hackery, cause it really wasn't. What I wrote in the OP was what I actually thought, or perceived. Tech_Esq, BBD, Si Modo, logical4u thanks. I've learned and had my mind changed about what I think conservativism means. I'm still a liberal, and I don't think that I am by any means without ignorance about conservatism (as this thread is hardly an in depth, critical, analysis by an authority), but I think it will help me not have a knee-jerk reaction to some of what I read posted by conservatives anymore, at least except for the radical fringe elements.

I hope that more conservatives respond to my OP so I can get an even better idea of what the conservatives in the US really think. Most liberals are probably only exposed to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or what is shown in the news. Obviously, the creekiest wheel gets the grease so the most outspoken get the media. Perhaps what we should try to remember is that those people in the media don't necessarily represent the people they believe they represent or are portrayed to represent i.e. Limbaugh represents conservatives like Bill Maher represents liberals.

My problem with TODAY'S conservatives is that everything has to be either black or white (and there's no intended innuendo there). Never any gray.

Even on the wider issues like "welfare" as conservatives insist on taking it ALL down and refusing to acknowledge that, yes, there ARE parts of so-called welfare that are absolutely necessary. But nope. Bad bad bad.

Using the Constitution as a crutch to justify all of their complaints about how this nation is governed when, in fact, the Constitution was specifically written ambiguously BECAUSE it would need to be applied only at its foundation as the country evolved.

The newest label of "just say no" is so very apropos to today's conservatives. We cannot remain nor survive as a super power and a leader for the rest of the world to emulate by remaining in gridlock. And "conservatives" not too long ago were not at all like that. That's why I too appreciated seeing some well thought out responses by THINKING conservatives for a change.

 

[Si modo]

BBD and Si Modo-

Sorry guys, I repped you too recently to rep you for your contributions in this thread.

If you care to I would love to read what you guys have to say about the fiscal stuff I wrote.

Si Modo- From your reply I would be hesitant categorizing you a social conservative - not that I am authority on what it really is to be a social conservative. But, considering my radical leftist ideologies, I agreed with you on the majority of your stances on those issues.

Thanks fellas.

I'll try to get to the fiscal part soon.

I don't classify myself as a social conservative either. I am definitely a fiscal conservative. In fact, I think the two are fundamentally opposite, IMO. I am GOP, but a hybrid Goldwater GOP, updated with the realities of a smaller world/more global culture. If anyone is familiar with Krauthammer's views, I have yet to disagree with him on anything he has published - and I have tried very hard to find something by him on which we disagree.

Because I am GOP, the assumptions that kneejerk reactionaries make about my views is on the one hand frustrating (because I think kneejerk reactionary assumptions are signs of non-thinkers and I expect all to think - see above) and funny because they usually end up making fools of themselves.

Anyway, good thread, C-man. I don't see how anyone can be worse off if they take the time and demeanor necessary to understand another's views.

 

[editec]

Seems like a fairly accurate description of the positions that social conservatives sign onto to me.

 

[logical4u]

I pleased to see that some of my preconceived notions on conservatism were wrong or inaccurate. I appreciate those of you who replied without attacking or taking my OP as partisan hackery, cause it really wasn't. What I wrote in the OP was what I actually thought, or perceived. Tech_Esq, BBD, Si Modo, logical4u thanks. I've learned and had my mind changed about what I think conservativism means. I'm still a liberal, and I don't think that I am by any means without ignorance about conservatism (as this thread is hardly an in depth, critical, analysis by an authority), but I think it will help me not have a knee-jerk reaction to some of what I read posted by conservatives anymore, at least except for the radical fringe elements.

I hope that more conservatives respond to my OP so I can get an even better idea of what the conservatives in the US really think. Most liberals are probably only exposed to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or what is shown in the news. Obviously, the creekiest wheel gets the grease so the most outspoken get the media. Perhaps what we should try to remember is that those people in the media don't necessarily represent the people they believe they represent or are portrayed to represent i.e. Limbaugh represents conservatives like Bill Maher represents liberals.

My problem with TODAY'S conservatives is that everything has to be either black or white (and there's no intended innuendo there). Never any gray.

Even on the wider issues like "welfare" as conservatives insist on taking it ALL down and refusing to acknowledge that, yes, there ARE parts of so-called welfare that are absolutely necessary. But nope. Bad bad bad.

Using the Constitution as a crutch to justify all of their complaints about how this nation is governed when, in fact, the Constitution was specifically written ambiguously BECAUSE it would need to be applied only at its foundation as the country evolved.

The newest label of "just say no" is so very apropos to today's conservatives. We cannot remain nor survive as a super power and a leader for the rest of the world to emulate by remaining in gridlock. And "conservatives" not too long ago were not at all like that. That's why I too appreciated seeing some well thought out responses by THINKING conservatives for a change.

Your comment on "just say no" interests me. Can you show where liberals have moved right? Can you demonstrate where they tried to meet conservatives halfway?

The Bible says: suffer no evil (basically everything is right or it is wrong). It might offend those against religion, but it simplifies the answer: why should conservatives "accept" (vote for) a plan that will lead to evil (even if it is only a tiny bit evil, now)? Conservatives tend to resist unproven theories and ideals that have already been proven to be detrimental for society. Why won't the liberals "try" to explain logically how THIS time, all will be different that all those previous times the same plan was put in place and FAILED?
It seems the labeling of "bigot" and "racist" are used instead of logic.
When I ask "if I am a bigot, can you show me a better way to live?", the person calling the names walks away.

 

[logical4u]

So, I've noticed that a lot of the arguments between the two ends of the political spectrum are based purely in misunderstandings. I've started this thread to attempt to understand what it is to be a conservative, what it stands for, what it means, etc. I was also inspired to do this because I saw a show on PBS yesterday that got me thinking about Federal spending and waste and just how wasteful governmental spending is.

If you're a conservative and would like to help enlighten this kool-aid drinking, marxist, terrorist-loving, Christian-bashing, spend-happy liberal please answer or comment on the following questions and statements. Now, what I'm looking for here isn't your particular political ideology or philosophy, but the conservative one. So answer for either what the majority of conservative believe or think, or, if it isn't that simple, give me an idea of how conservatives view that particular topic. I'm going to write either a comment that I think is the case and you correct me if I'm wrong or inaccurate, or I'll just ask a question if I'm really unsure as to what conservatives think about that particular topic.

I'm ignorant of many conservative ideas, but I think I know enough to separate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism.

When answering you may want to copy and paste starting from below here, just for clarity:

I'll start with...

Social conservatism:

Do social conservatives think abortion shouldn't be legal, or is it that they think Roe v. Wade should be overturned and states should determine whether to allow abortions or not? Should those states have a referendum to determine the legality of abortions?

Social conservatives think same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal.

Many social conservatives think that homosexuality should be illegal.

Social conservatives want to allow prayer in public schools.

Social conservatives want to allow the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Many social conservatives don't want evolution taught in public schools.

Social conservatives want to keep marijuana illegal.

Social conservatives want stricter sentences for crimes than we have now.

Social conservatives want to deport all illegal immigrants and have stricter illegal immigration laws, stricter legal immigration laws, and more protection of US borders.

Social conservatives want all US citizens to speak the English as the official US language.

Social conservatives think that the government should be better aligned with Christian ideals.

Social conservatives think that US culture should be better aligned with Christian ideals.

Social conservatives tend to think that state universities and colleges are staffed mostly with liberal professors and administration.

Social conservatives think that police are generally good people with a tough job and that excuses the rare occurrences when police may behave overly brutal or when they seem abusive of their authority.

Social conservatives think that democracy is the best system of government for all peoples and all cultures around the world; and if democracy was world-wide there would be fewer wars.

Social conservatives think the war in Iraq is justified.

Social conservatives think the war in Afghanistan is justified.

Social conservatives think that there should be more faith-based initiatives.

Social conservatives think that the Constitution is not a living document.

Social conservatives think that racism is a thing of the past and no longer a salient issue in modern politics.

I'll address Fiscal Conservatism in the next post in this thread.

Okay, Colorada..., you received a lot of responses from conservatives, how about getting the libs to answer the same questions.

 

[Si modo]

Fiscal Conservatism: ….

- Fiscal conservatives think that the federal government and state governments generally overstep their bounds fiscally.

Yes.

- Fiscal conservatives think that income tax isn't supported by the Constitution.

No.

- Fiscal conservatives believe in a flat tax.

Not a simple answe, but a variation of that, most definitely.

- Fiscal conservative believe capitalism is generally the best economic system for all peoples and cultures.

Yes.

- Fiscal conservatives think there is too much governmental meddling in business and that capitalism works better when its completely unregulated. The market will regulate itself.

Too much meddling? Yes. Completely unregulated? No, tempered, very tempered, regulation. Will the market regulate itself? Absolutely, but sometimes the time it takes to equilibrate is inconsistent with safety of the people. Then, and only then, and when it is an acute safety situation, is tempered regulation a good idea.

- Fiscal conservatives think that large corporations run the American economy with good reason: these are the companies which have succeeded and therefore have a right to do whatever they can to increase the bottom line, as long as it doesn't hurt US citizens.

Whatever they can? No. As long as they are within the laws and regulating laws are thoroughly analyzed for impact, yes, do as you will. If it backfires, the government is to blame for not thoroughly analyzing the ramifications of their regulating legislation.

- Fiscal conservatives want to privatize Social Security or do away with it altogether.

Absolutely. It will be insolvent in a decade. Fix it or toss it out. Not addressing it is beyond negligence…I still cannot believe that BHO – the all wise one and one who gave us hope of fiscal responsibility – has done zip about it.

- Fiscal conservatives want to privatize Medicare/Medicaid or do away with it altogether.

Same situation as above – it is inefficient and going broke. Fix it.

- Do Fiscal conservatives not want health care reform in any form?

Yes. On the one hand, we have been told that a government HC system will make us globally competitive. I don’t see how and the reason why is that we have an almost broke Medicare. Not a good track record – I wouldn’t hire the government to handle a problem. But, given that, it costs us too much, so reform of some sort is necessary. So far I’ve seen crap, though.

- Fiscal conservatives think there shouldn't be a minimum wage: let the market settle on what the minimum wage should be.

Yes. Suck it up, do away with it, and when the market equilibrates, we’ll be in a more realistic market.

- Fiscal conservatives think that the economy should be more of a priority than the environment.

Most of the time, absolutely. Some times, environmental issues will need to be addressed.

- Fiscal conservatives think welfare should be discontinued.

No. Not entirely. Reform for efficiency.

- Fiscal conservative think that unemployment insurance should be discontiued.

No. And that one seems rather well run.

- Do fiscal conservatives think all social program spending should be discontinued on the Federal level and that states should handle it i.e. food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, etc., or do fiscal conservatives think that all social programs should be discontinued and let non-profits handle those programs with charitable donations?

I think for the most part, most of those programs are at the state level, as they should be. Not an entire discontinution, but definite reform so that those who get in the system have incentives to get out of that system. It’s a bad situation to get sucked into and we enable those to stay in with such restrictions that leave them little choices of getting out. Keep it, but fix it. Charities will always exist and contribute.

- Fiscal conservatives want to get rid of Affirmative Action because institutional racism and sexism are things of the past and no longer issues in American business.

No and no. Look at what AA really is – all it says is that discrimination is not permitted. If there is a preference to ANY race for hiring or retaining emplyment that is racist on its face. Tighten up AA to get rid of implicit quotas (I know, quotas are unconstitutional as recently ruled, but the way AA is currently, it creates incentives for hiring a color, sex, orientation,etc. rather than the most qualified person). Fix it.

- Fiscal conservatives think we should stop our dependence on foreign oil by drilling here instead.

Too general. Yes, work toward ending that dependence, and yes drilling in the lag time to realiziation of alternate energies.




If you notice a general theme, this fiscal conservative is not anti-government spending or regulation, but this fiscal conservative is against the inefficiency of it all. I demand that my government fix what they broke when it costs me. I demand that the fix is not just throwing more of my money at something that is broken. I demand that my legislators thoroughly analyze the regulations they pass with their motivation on what's good for the country, not what is good for their pandering for votes among a public opinion that is based on misinformation and media talking points.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Okay, Colorada..., you received a lot of responses from conservatives, how about getting the libs to answer the same questions.

I think a better idea is for a conservative to start a thread with what they think liberalism is (and not in the archaic sense of libertarianism) just like I did with conservatism. I would love to tackle that and perhaps end some mischaracterizations and misunderstandings or erase any inaccurate preconceived notions. Go for it logical4u!