For Liberals: What conservative policy do you support?

[farmer]

I would like to see some fiscal responsibility but I have a hard time believing we can fix every thing by cutting taxes. Or by cutting spending,which no one right or left ever says what they would cut.
I also believe we should get tougher on crime,but that costs money. How to pay for that no one ever says.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Anyone in the mood for a little thought experiment? If you were designing a new country and it's government policies AND YOU'RE A LIBERAL what conservative policy would you throw into the mix because it made sense to you?

If your answer involves specific conditions, please share what those conditions are.

There might be quite a few if I put my mind to it. This is the 9th "Plank" in the Tea Party Platform (Does the tea party fit within your definition of "conservative"?)

9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - "American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence on the peoples’ representatives. The Tea Party movement is seen as a threat to the entrenched political parties and thus is the continual target of smear campaigns and misrepresentation of its ideals. We choose not to respond to these attacks except to strongly and explicitly disavow any and all hate speech, any and all violence as well as insinuations of violence, and any and all extreme and fringe elements that bring discredit to the Tea Party Movement. We are a peaceful movement and respect other's opinions and views even though they do not agree with our own. We stand by the Tea Party beliefs and goals and choose to focus our energies on ensuring that our government representatives do the same."

The first sentence is the centerpiece of my agreement but I'll go along with all of it for the sake of comity.

Thank you for being the first to play the game as I envisioned it when I wrote the OP.

Do you have specific vision in mind regarding the issue of money being used to buy/influence votes?

My vision would be to allow people to donate to the PROCESS rather than the candidate. And of course you can use your personal money however you want.

What do I mean by donate to the process? Simple. If you wish to donate to an election, you send your donation to a quasi government/private foundation which distributes all money donated to all qualified candidates for whichever position you selected. So in regards to the Presidential election, for instance, if you donated $1000 and there were 3 candidates on the final ballot each of those candidates would receive $333 from your donation, and so on and so forth.

No I couldn't go that far in depersonalizing the contribution process. If an individual wanted to donate a $1000 to a pro-life or a pro-choice candidate that's fine by be. I think your idea is kind of a privatized public financing of elections, which I could support under the proper guidelines. It's the enourmous wealth infused into the campaign process I see as the major danger to the electoral process and Democracy. The need for obscene amounts of money usually needed to win gives a huge advantage to incumbants for one thing. They have had years to sell their influence in return for donations. It doesn't have to be outright bribery, the deals are a quiet nod and a yes vote on a piece of legislation favorable to, lets say a weapons system before congress. or a no vote on a new banking regulation. With the Scotus opening the flood gates it's only going to get worse. I never was too fond of term limits but in the last couple of years I've concluded they may be the only way to break the special interests stranglehold on the new paridigm - government of the wealthy, for the wealthy, and by the wealthy. In any case citizens have to find some way to gaurantee it is their will and not other peoples money that is represented in Government.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Anyone in the mood for a little thought experiment? If you were designing a new country and it's government policies AND YOU'RE A LIBERAL what conservative policy would you throw into the mix because it made sense to you?

If your answer involves specific conditions, please share what those conditions are.

This is impossible to answer. There were Republican policies in the 1950's that were outstanding and really helped the country.

Building the interstate highway
The creation of NASA
Making the uber rich pay their fair share
The emphasis on science and education

But those are all things of the past and the GOP doesn't stand for any of those anymore. What's awfully odd is they look at those years as a "Golden Age" in America. Stating their current policies ruins the notion of a "clean" debate so I will have to stick with "impossible to answer".

Yepp. 60 years ago, there is no doubt I would have been an Eisenhower Republican.

 

[Statistikhengst]

How does that line go from the "Do you want to be a millionaire show" - Is that your final answer?

How much of the Federal Budget should be cut and are you sticking with 95% of that coming from the military? If so, where in the military would you cut the spending?

To start with, The US does NOT need 1,000 military bases around the world, including at least 150 in Germany (It was in the news. We won the war).

U.S. military bases around the world graphic National Post

Oh, and I really don't think that we need two of them in the Bahamas, whose mission is to train Bahamian naval forces (Bahama does not have a navy).

Very likely the Bahamas is being used for something else... like secret R&D.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Anyone in the mood for a little thought experiment? If you were designing a new country and it's government policies AND YOU'RE A LIBERAL what conservative policy would you throw into the mix because it made sense to you?

If your answer involves specific conditions, please share what those conditions are.

There might be quite a few if I put my mind to it. This is the 9th "Plank" in the Tea Party Platform (Does the tea party fit within your definition of "conservative"?)

9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - "American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence on the peoples’ representatives. The Tea Party movement is seen as a threat to the entrenched political parties and thus is the continual target of smear campaigns and misrepresentation of its ideals. We choose not to respond to these attacks except to strongly and explicitly disavow any and all hate speech, any and all violence as well as insinuations of violence, and any and all extreme and fringe elements that bring discredit to the Tea Party Movement. We are a peaceful movement and respect other's opinions and views even though they do not agree with our own. We stand by the Tea Party beliefs and goals and choose to focus our energies on ensuring that our government representatives do the same."

The first sentence is the centerpiece of my agreement but I'll go along with all of it for the sake of comity.

Thank you for being the first to play the game as I envisioned it when I wrote the OP.

Do you have specific vision in mind regarding the issue of money being used to buy/influence votes?

My vision would be to allow people to donate to the PROCESS rather than the candidate. And of course you can use your personal money however you want.

What do I mean by donate to the process? Simple. If you wish to donate to an election, you send your donation to a quasi government/private foundation which distributes all money donated to all qualified candidates for whichever position you selected. So in regards to the Presidential election, for instance, if you donated $1000 and there were 3 candidates on the final ballot each of those candidates would receive $333 from your donation, and so on and so forth.

Anyone in the mood for a little thought experiment? If you were designing a new country and it's government policies AND YOU'RE A LIBERAL what conservative policy would you throw into the mix because it made sense to you?

If your answer involves specific conditions, please share what those conditions are.

There might be quite a few if I put my mind to it. This is the 9th "Plank" in the Tea Party Platform (Does the tea party fit within your definition of "conservative"?)

9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - "American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence on the peoples’ representatives. The Tea Party movement is seen as a threat to the entrenched political parties and thus is the continual target of smear campaigns and misrepresentation of its ideals. We choose not to respond to these attacks except to strongly and explicitly disavow any and all hate speech, any and all violence as well as insinuations of violence, and any and all extreme and fringe elements that bring discredit to the Tea Party Movement. We are a peaceful movement and respect other's opinions and views even though they do not agree with our own. We stand by the Tea Party beliefs and goals and choose to focus our energies on ensuring that our government representatives do the same."

The first sentence is the centerpiece of my agreement but I'll go along with all of it for the sake of comity.

Thank you for being the first to play the game as I envisioned it when I wrote the OP.

Do you have specific vision in mind regarding the issue of money being used to buy/influence votes?

My vision would be to allow people to donate to the PROCESS rather than the candidate. And of course you can use your personal money however you want.

What do I mean by donate to the process? Simple. If you wish to donate to an election, you send your donation to a quasi government/private foundation which distributes all money donated to all qualified candidates for whichever position you selected. So in regards to the Presidential election, for instance, if you donated $1000 and there were 3 candidates on the final ballot each of those candidates would receive $333 from your donation, and so on and so forth.

No I couldn't go that far in depersonalizing the contribution process. If an individual wanted to donate a $1000 to a pro-life or a pro-choice candidate that's fine by be. I think your idea is kind of a privatized public financing of elections, which I could support under the proper guidelines. It's the enourmous wealth infused into the campaign process I see as the major danger to the electoral process and Democracy. The need for obscene amounts of money usually needed to win gives a huge advantage to incumbants for one thing. They have had years to sell their influence in return for donations. It doesn't have to be outright bribery, the deals are a quiet nod and a yes vote on a piece of legislation favorable to, lets say a weapons system before congress. or a no vote on a new banking regulation. With the Scotus opening the flood gates it's only going to get worse. I never was too fond of term limits but in the last couple of years I've concluded they may be the only way to break the special interests stranglehold on the new paridigm - government of the wealthy, for the wealthy, and by the wealthy. In any case citizens have to find some way to gaurantee it is their will and not other peoples money that is represented in Government.

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The problem is that when a sensible conservative position arises, as soon as there is any bipartisan agreement on it, a large part of the right labels it a sell-out and it is no longer "conservative". Examples:

1. Earned income tax credit.
2. Cap-and-trade pollution control.
3. Romney-care.
4. McCain style campaign finance reform.
5. McCain/Rubio style immigration reform.
6. Reagan endorsed gun control.

In fact, I would be hard put to find any bipartisan measure that the "conservatives" would accept even if they first proposed it. Can you name one?

Yepp. Why, I bet that 90% of conservative out there right now have absolutely no idea that the idea of the individual mandate was pushed by:

Newt Gingrich.

But instead of admitting that a HUGE amount of what Clinton supported was a hybrid of the best of both parties, which, btw, is also what Bush tried to do and what Obama is also doing, they just claim that any Republicans who supported X or Y this or that many years ago are all now socialists.

It's a very strange, pathological behavior.

 

[OnePercenter]

I'm not greedy, racist, or a hypocrite, so I can't support any conservative policies.

 

[SmedlyButler]

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

Sounds like you'd have to get rid of large defense contracts, FDA watch -dogging drugs, any regulation of banks etc to shrink government that small. I'm not a big enough believer in the benevolence of large corporations to go that far either. Don't give the incubants time to accrue a long iou list, make all lobbying transparent. Some lobbyists actually have a hand in penning legislation, that has to stop. The influence of wealth is so entrenched, so pervasive whatever it takes is going to have to be massive and bipartisan. I can envisage a truce and cooperation between liberals, tea-partiers and other like minded parties to accomplish a common goal.

 

[Statistikhengst]

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

Sounds like you'd have to get rid of large defense contracts, FDA watch -dogging drugs, any regulation of banks etc to shrink government that small. I'm not a big enough believer in the benevolence of large corporations to go that far either. Don't give the incubants time to accrue a long iou list, make all lobbying transparent. Some lobbyists actually have a hand in penning legislation, that has to stop. The influence of wealth is so entrenched, so pervasive whatever it takes is going to have to be massive and bipartisan. I can envisage a truce and cooperation between liberals, tea-partiers and other like minded parties to accomplish a common goal.

 

[Rikurzhen]

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

Sounds like you'd have to get rid of large defense contracts, FDA watch -dogging drugs, any regulation of banks etc to shrink government that small. I'm not a big enough believer in the benevolence of large corporations to go that far either. Don't give the incubants time to accrue a long iou list, make all lobbying transparent. Some lobbyists actually have a hand in penning legislation, that has to stop. The influence of wealth is so entrenched, so pervasive whatever it takes is going to have to be massive and bipartisan. I can envisage a truce and cooperation between liberals, tea-partiers and other like minded parties to accomplish a common goal.

Look at the revolving door. It doesn't have to be an incumbent. A regulator at the SEC or FDA resigns and then takes up a job with the company/industry he was regulating. Where is Geitner today? You can put up all sorts of roadblocks but so long as that big honeypot is still there tempting people, people/corporations are going to find ways to get more than their fair share of honey.

As for term limits do you believe that there is any benefit to experience as a legislator?

 

[Agit8r]

"One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause. By this each person has at once divested himself of the first fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself and to assert his own cause. He abdicates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the right of self-defense, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it."
-- Edmund Burke; from 'Reflections on the Revolution in France'

___

 

[SmedlyButler]

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

Sounds like you'd have to get rid of large defense contracts, FDA watch -dogging drugs, any regulation of banks etc to shrink government that small. I'm not a big enough believer in the benevolence of large corporations to go that far either. Don't give the incubants time to accrue a long iou list, make all lobbying transparent. Some lobbyists actually have a hand in penning legislation, that has to stop. The influence of wealth is so entrenched, so pervasive whatever it takes is going to have to be massive and bipartisan. I can envisage a truce and cooperation between liberals, tea-partiers and other like minded parties to accomplish a common goal.

Look at the revolving door. It doesn't have to be an incumbent. A regulator at the SEC or FDA resigns and then takes up a job with the company/industry he was regulating. Where is Geitner today? You can put up all sorts of roadblocks but so long as that big honeypot is still there tempting people, people/corporations are going to find ways to get more than their fair share of honey.

As for term limits do you believe that there is any benefit to experience as a legislator?

The revolving door is a tough nut to crack and it swings both ways, Geitner came into government from the financial system, did his best to help them out and went back whence he came. Without unduley restricting an individual's right to pursue his chosen career and livelyhood how do you bust that cycle. I know there are regulations in place to limit the effects but they're obviously ineffective. Got any ideas?

 

[SmedlyButler]

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

Sounds like you'd have to get rid of large defense contracts, FDA watch -dogging drugs, any regulation of banks etc to shrink government that small. I'm not a big enough believer in the benevolence of large corporations to go that far either. Don't give the incubants time to accrue a long iou list, make all lobbying transparent. Some lobbyists actually have a hand in penning legislation, that has to stop. The influence of wealth is so entrenched, so pervasive whatever it takes is going to have to be massive and bipartisan. I can envisage a truce and cooperation between liberals, tea-partiers and other like minded parties to accomplish a common goal.

Look at the revolving door. It doesn't have to be an incumbent. A regulator at the SEC or FDA resigns and then takes up a job with the company/industry he was regulating. Where is Geitner today? You can put up all sorts of roadblocks but so long as that big honeypot is still there tempting people, people/corporations are going to find ways to get more than their fair share of honey.

As for term limits do you believe that there is any benefit to experience as a legislator?

The revolving door is a tough nut to crack and it swings both ways, Geitner came into government from the financial system, did his best to help them out and went back whence he came. Without unduley restricting an individual's right to pursue his chosen career and livelyhood how do you bust that cycle. I know there are regulations in place to limit the effects but they're obviously ineffective. Got any ideas?

Oh yeah, the benefits of tenure. Well there are of course but at some point (to be decided) the risks out weigh the benefits,

 

[Rikurzhen]

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

Sounds like you'd have to get rid of large defense contracts, FDA watch -dogging drugs, any regulation of banks etc to shrink government that small. I'm not a big enough believer in the benevolence of large corporations to go that far either. Don't give the incubants time to accrue a long iou list, make all lobbying transparent. Some lobbyists actually have a hand in penning legislation, that has to stop. The influence of wealth is so entrenched, so pervasive whatever it takes is going to have to be massive and bipartisan. I can envisage a truce and cooperation between liberals, tea-partiers and other like minded parties to accomplish a common goal.

Look at the revolving door. It doesn't have to be an incumbent. A regulator at the SEC or FDA resigns and then takes up a job with the company/industry he was regulating. Where is Geitner today? You can put up all sorts of roadblocks but so long as that big honeypot is still there tempting people, people/corporations are going to find ways to get more than their fair share of honey.

As for term limits do you believe that there is any benefit to experience as a legislator?

The revolving door is a tough nut to crack and it swings both ways, Geitner came into government from the financial system, did his best to help them out and went back whence he came. Without unduley restricting an individual's right to pursue his chosen career and livelyhood how do you bust that cycle. I know there are regulations in place to limit the effects but they're obviously ineffective. Got any ideas?

For top level appointments, so long as they're not corrupt and self-dealing, I'm not so worried about the revolving door. My bigger concern is lower down with career bureaucrats. I'd say a 10 year 90% income surtax on the increased salary (the differential) they get from a new employer who they used to regulate.

For the top guys, they should be limited to salary packages that are no greater than what they gave up when they entered. I don't want Cabinet Officers using government service to enrich themselves. If they were making a million per year then they are restricted to an inflation adjusted $1,000,000 per year when they depart government. The details can be fleshed out but the point that guides this is no personal enrichment.

This though is only a small part of the problem. Appropriations is the big time, same with rent-seeking via legislation. I don't know how to stop that - the honeypot is too big of an attraction.

 

[Agit8r]

I believe in private property, and that economies should be based on merit. If these are not supported by conservative policies, they are at least conservative talking points.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Anyone in the mood for a little thought experiment? If you were designing a new country and it's government policies AND YOU'RE A LIBERAL what conservative policy would you throw into the mix because it made sense to you?

If your answer involves specific conditions, please share what those conditions are.

There might be quite a few if I put my mind to it. This is the 9th "Plank" in the Tea Party Platform (Does the tea party fit within your definition of "conservative"?)

9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - "American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence on the peoples’ representatives. The Tea Party movement is seen as a threat to the entrenched political parties and thus is the continual target of smear campaigns and misrepresentation of its ideals. We choose not to respond to these attacks except to strongly and explicitly disavow any and all hate speech, any and all violence as well as insinuations of violence, and any and all extreme and fringe elements that bring discredit to the Tea Party Movement. We are a peaceful movement and respect other's opinions and views even though they do not agree with our own. We stand by the Tea Party beliefs and goals and choose to focus our energies on ensuring that our government representatives do the same."

The first sentence is the centerpiece of my agreement but I'll go along with all of it for the sake of comity.

Thank you for being the first to play the game as I envisioned it when I wrote the OP.

Do you have specific vision in mind regarding the issue of money being used to buy/influence votes?

My vision would be to allow people to donate to the PROCESS rather than the candidate. And of course you can use your personal money however you want.

What do I mean by donate to the process? Simple. If you wish to donate to an election, you send your donation to a quasi government/private foundation which distributes all money donated to all qualified candidates for whichever position you selected. So in regards to the Presidential election, for instance, if you donated $1000 and there were 3 candidates on the final ballot each of those candidates would receive $333 from your donation, and so on and so forth.

If we had a system of fair and simple taxes, nobody would have any incentive to donate millions to politics.

The problem is NOT with well-heeled Americans donating money to politics, the problem is their reasonable expectations of tax breaks in return.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I would like to see some fiscal responsibility but I have a hard time believing we can fix every thing by cutting taxes. Or by cutting spending,which no one right or left ever says what they would cut.
I also believe we should get tougher on crime,but that costs money. How to pay for that no one ever says.

The answer remains: Fair and simple tax codes.

Remove from congress the power to customize the tax burdens of their friends and campaign contributors and *poof* goes a MAJOR source of corruption in America.

 

[AVG-JOE]

When you have a large pot o' gold sitting under the rainbow, do you believe that you can stop people from trying to lift coins from that pot?

My point is that when government spending is so pervasive in the economy the temptation of influencing that spending is so large because the reward is also large. The only sure way I see of actually getting a government which is responsive to citizens interests, and not corporate interests, is to shrink the size of government down to such a small level that corporations can't actually influence the government so that they get a big payoff.

How would you remove the temptation?

Sounds like you'd have to get rid of large defense contracts, FDA watch -dogging drugs, any regulation of banks etc to shrink government that small. I'm not a big enough believer in the benevolence of large corporations to go that far either. Don't give the incubants time to accrue a long iou list, make all lobbying transparent. Some lobbyists actually have a hand in penning legislation, that has to stop. The influence of wealth is so entrenched, so pervasive whatever it takes is going to have to be massive and bipartisan. I can envisage a truce and cooperation between liberals, tea-partiers and other like minded parties to accomplish a common goal.

Look at the revolving door. It doesn't have to be an incumbent. A regulator at the SEC or FDA resigns and then takes up a job with the company/industry he was regulating. Where is Geitner today? You can put up all sorts of roadblocks but so long as that big honeypot is still there tempting people, people/corporations are going to find ways to get more than their fair share of honey.

As for term limits do you believe that there is any benefit to experience as a legislator?

The revolving door is a tough nut to crack and it swings both ways, Geitner came into government from the financial system, did his best to help them out and went back whence he came. Without unduley restricting an individual's right to pursue his chosen career and livelyhood how do you bust that cycle. I know there are regulations in place to limit the effects but they're obviously ineffective. Got any ideas?

For top level appointments, so long as they're not corrupt and self-dealing, I'm not so worried about the revolving door. My bigger concern is lower down with career bureaucrats. I'd say a 10 year 90% income surtax on the increased salary (the differential) they get from a new employer who they used to regulate.

For the top guys, they should be limited to salary packages that are no greater than what they gave up when they entered. I don't want Cabinet Officers using government service to enrich themselves. If they were making a million per year then they are restricted to an inflation adjusted $1,000,000 per year when they depart government. The details can be fleshed out but the point that guides this is no personal enrichment.

This though is only a small part of the problem. Appropriations is the big time, same with rent-seeking via legislation. I don't know how to stop that - the honeypot is too big of an attraction.

Why bother with all those complications when a fair and simple tax code puts ALL business lobbyists, both former bureaucrats and not, in the unemployment line?

​

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I would like to see some fiscal responsibility but I have a hard time believing we can fix every thing by cutting taxes. Or by cutting spending,which no one right or left ever says what they would cut.
I also believe we should get tougher on crime,but that costs money. How to pay for that no one ever says.

The answer remains: Fair and simple tax codes.

Remove from congress the power to customize the tax burdens of their friends and campaign contributors and *poof* goes a MAJOR source of corruption in America.

Yep, national sales tax, 10%. You buy it , you pay taxes on it, no loopholes no deductions, no rebates. Just 10%(I would favor excluding food and utilities though)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Anyone in the mood for a little thought experiment? If you were designing a new country and it's government policies AND YOU'RE A LIBERAL what conservative policy would you throw into the mix because it made sense to you?

If your answer involves specific conditions, please share what those conditions are.

This is impossible to answer. There were Republican policies in the 1950's that were outstanding and really helped the country.

Building the interstate highway
The creation of NASA
Making the uber rich pay their fair share
The emphasis on science and education

But those are all things of the past and the GOP doesn't stand for any of those anymore. What's awfully odd is they look at those years as a "Golden Age" in America. Stating their current policies ruins the notion of a "clean" debate so I will have to stick with "impossible to answer".

Correct.


And conservatives during the 50s and 60s correctly understood that although government wasn't always the answer, it also wasn't 'the enemy,' where America is at its greatest when government and the private sector work together to realize important National goals, such as the interstate system and the space program.


This is the common sense and pragmatism that conservatives lost at the advent of the Reagan years, when conservatives abandoned common sense and pragmatism and replaced it instead with strict, blind adherence to political doctrine and dogma, in conjunction with prostituting themselves to the social right and Christian fundamentalists.