Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bonnie, Mar 14, 2005.
March 14, 2005
Bonnie, I have to take exception with the philosophy of that article. I'm too lazy right now to look it up but someone once said "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
One can be conservative in some areas and liberal in others. I tend to be conservative (mostly) in fiscal matters and in the area of government services, entitlement programs, state's rights and defense. I tend to be somwhat liberal on the environment.
Even in those areas where I am most conservative, there are exceptions. Personally, I believe that a thinking person cannot slavishly devote himself to a single point of view and apply that to every situation. Truth is, that's the definition of an idealogue.
I suppose that the writer would include me in the "ex-con" category. But I'm comfortable with that, because despite the fact that I'm conservative, I am humble enough to recognize that conservatives don't have a lock on all the good ideas in government or society. I think that we should accept whatever is best for the country, regardless of the source and without regard to dogma or ideology.
kinda shoots the 'moderates are those who can't decide one side or the other' argument right in the foot, doesn't it?
I consider myself independent because of the very same reasons that you do merlin. I'm conservative on aot of fiscal matters, liberal in some social.
I posted this article more for it's debate value than anything I agree or disagree with. As you stated I too am conservative in some areas and liberal in others and consider myself an Independent more than specifically a Republican. That said I also do think there is merit in consistency and consensus, as that is what moves a country foward. I respect those that weigh each idea carefully, but I also admire those that have a strong ideological philosophy and generally stick to that as much as possible.
Ralph Waldo Emerson form his self reliance essay
Do what's best for the country? That's a glittering generality my friend.
The article is good. Most people want to say they're for freedom until it comes to a pet peeve of theirs or something that benefits them personally.
I'd say that a lot of those "ex-cons" are not really conservatives to begin with. Altho the Republicans may still use the conservative label, they have pretty much become liberals, while the Democrats have pretty much become socialists.
Real conservativism seems to be dead. Where is the true conservative leadership? I can't really see it on today's political landscape.
It may have died in theory with Reagan. Most newer conservatives seem to be obsessed with reaching across the aisle, only to keep getting their fingers bitten off.
Why is that? Maybe today's conservatives are just as stupid as the liberals claim.
I disagree. There are plenty of good conservatives out there. But just because one doesn't toe the party line on every issue doesn't mean one isn't a "true conservative." For example, I believe that marijuana usage should be decriminalized. That certainly goes against traditional conservative values! But am I really an "ex-conservative" just because of my stand on one issue? Whatever happened to the Big Tent of Republicanism??
Let's hope Bill Frist can take the bull by the horns. I long for the days of Newt Gingrich!
Separate names with a comma.