EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,153
- 1,100
- Thread starter
- #121
absurdly disorganized elementary and embarrassing. Words have different meanings through time and several meanings at any one time. William Buckley Junior defined conservatism in the post World War II era by being the most important conservative by far in the post -World War II era. He defined it in short as “against government.” His position was identical to our founders who created something totally new under the sun namely very limited government because they too were in short against govt.Before them the debate starts with Plato and Aristotle one of whom was for big wonderful Liberal government and one of whom was totally opposed to big liberal govt and for freedom. Let’s not forget the American Revolution was for freedom from big liberal government( using today’s William F Buckley Junior’s definitions) not for freedom from the Girl Scouts.Special Ed returns. For those who joined in the last year or so the reason we call him "Special Ed" will make itself readily apparent.
Now on to the refutation. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin. James Madison was already dead for eighteen years. These are simple historical facts. This is however a tiny bit closer to Special Ed's previous claim where he had Jefferson founding the Party --- 28 years after his own death.
"Liberals" were Madison himself and the rest of the crew that wrote the Constitution. Liberalism was its driving force. "Federalists" were a political party that organized after that was done. Madison was a member (and founder) of the "Democratic-Republican" Party, which has no direct connection to either of the modern parties by those names.
As far as Madison's "regrets" I couldn't say what his "greatest" one was but he did call for a Constitutional Amendment that would have made the insane "winner take all" system the Electoral College uses, illegal.
I think the most hilariousest part of the OP is his trying to sell the idea that Madison wanted to make himself illegal.
Dear Pogo and rightwinger
The best explanation and distinction I've seen clarifying Liberals and Conservatives beliefs
came from Allen West's book "Guardian of the Republic":
* today's Liberals came from the Radical Liberal approach made famous by Rousseau
This approach is using Govt to establish the collective will of the people
* today's Conservatives came from the Classical Liberal approach by John Locke
This is where the tradition came from that the Constitution LIMITS and CHECKS the powers of govt (where people do NOT rely on Govt for natural rights that come from Nature or God,
so the PEOPLE have the power and authority of Govt, not the other way around)
So the two groups use govt in different ways.
One (the Liberals) believe in RELYING on Govt as the Central Authority for establishing laws for everyone.
And usually the emphasis is on "promoting the general welfare" so this is proactive toward social programs and benefits
based on what Liberals push for TODAY.
The Other (the Conservatives believe in LIMITING Govt so that the authority of decisions remains vested in the people.
So this is where the pushing and shoving comes from, where one side appears to want to expand govt to "control"
all the services and decisions FOR the people; while the other appears to want to get rid of govt and excess legislation.
The problem being that Corporations already have collective power and influence similar to Govt but have no
regulatory means to prevent abuses of power, as the Constitution serves to check official govt but not corporations.
Because of the disproportionate influence of corporations and media in the democratic process of govt and parties,
this is why Liberals push for more dependence on Govt for protections from this source of abusive oppression
that the Constitution doesn't check against. While Conservatives continue to argue for "free market" solutions
against the massive monopolies of corporate interests that bypass checks and balances.
Pogo and rightwinger Regardless where Madison or Jefferson, or Mason or other past leaders
stood on federalism anti-federalism,
do you agree with West's explanation that the
* Liberals depend on Govt as the central authority for establishing laws for the public and/or promoting general welfare
* Conservatives only agree to grant CERTAIN powers to Govt as defined in the Constitution,
believe in Limited Govt and push for enforcing Constitutional limits, check and balances, and separation of power to prevent too much control of people's choices and resources from being vested in the hands of a few officials running govt (instead of the PEOPLE being the authority that govt has the duty to represent and reflect the consent of).
Is that a fair delineation between the two camps?
According to West, even the Black leadership was split between these two ideologies,
where DuBois believed in relying on the political process through GOVT to "establish political rights and equality"
while Booker T. Washington believed that equality and true empowerment would be gained by
teaching INDEPENDENCE of govt, and for Blacks especially to own their own property and businesses in order to be equal.
This stems from the "difference in beliefs" where
Conservatives tend to believe that the natural rights of man come from Natural Laws (not from govt)
while Liberals don't believe in God given rights or laws (which is faith based or just plain "made up" as a religious cult following for class control)
and believe that people depend on GOVT to establish protections of rights.
So that's the summary of political beliefs from left and right.
Does this seem accurate to you?
Or what would you clarify? Thanks!
No. It doesn't.
Allen West is a certifiable nutjob. Again you can't use the same term to mean two opposite things -- he's trying to play a single word both ways. Liberalism believes that government, should, outside of regulating obvious common necessities, stand out of the way and let People be People. The opposite of that, the belief that government should be stepping in and controlling People, is Statism, not "Liberalism". It should be obvious ("should" be) that you can't simultaneously pull in opposite directions. You cannot stand up and walk in an "eastwest" direction. It's either "east" or else it's "west".
It's impossible for "Liberalism" to mean its own opposite. We don't say something is "bright" when we actually mean it's "dark". That's pure bullshit intended to break down communication and slander an entire faction the bullshitter sees as a threat.
Anyone notice that this is exactly what George Orwell was describing in the term "Doublethink"?
Last edited:
And sadly too late for April Fool's Day. Which is however the date on which this preposterous perversion of historical fact plopped itself here.
