Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Congratulations on a post that says precisely nothing… I mean no offense here, but if your intent is to educate liberals on the realities of conservatives, why haven’t you done so? If you think we set up straw men, why haven’t you laid out what those are and compared them with the realities of your positions? If you think that we do not make ourselves familiar with the logical arguments in support of your side, and are bewildered when confronted with them, why have you not made any? As it is, the entire content of your post is simply the opinion that all liberals do not really get who conservatives are, and that we need to. You’ve offered no suggestions as to how to go about this, you’ve offered no perspective on conservatism broader than “we’re not what you think we are”.

Sorry, but… where’s the beef?

JAM,

Kudos for being a good debater… but debate for the sake of debate is rather irrelevant. As Jarandhel said, where’s the substance? Is there any meaning to this or is it just a criticism of liberals? Don’t get me wrong, it’s a useful bit of criticism for liberals, but it doesn’t really address any particular issue.

The Republicans are in the process of dominating American politics. While the overall direction pleases me, I do believe we need to have some rational liberal leavening in the conservative mix. Until you all acknowledge your frame blindness, you cannot contribute any more than negation.

Sorry Jack, but this just makes me giggle. The GOP has had a nice run lately but it pales in comparison - especially at the federal Congressional level - to the run the Democrats had until very recently. The degree of hubris in the Republican Party these days is simultaneously laughable and alarming. It’s new spate of wins has just made it giddy with a sense of superiority. But I ask you as a conservative: were the Republicans so horribly inferior and bankrupt during all those years (the majority of the 20th century) in the political wilderness? Did they have nothing to contribute? Were they all about “negativity” the whole time? I don’t think you’re quite that naive. Keep in mind that pride goeth…

By the way, just to set the record straight in regard to the Republican “domination” of American politics: the last I heard, the GOP - that party of states’ rights - remained the minority party (barely) in terms of state legislative seats. As for the nice run at the federal level, enjoy it while it lasts. As far as I can tell, Republicans have very few ideas beyond tax cuts, deficits and fanning the culture wars. In this, the GOP has sown the seeds of its own destruction (and I’m praying not America’s). My sense is that the people will not long retain much affection for the ruling Republican elite.

I have a question for you, Anthony. Do you believe you understand our enemy? That is to say, do you believe that you understand the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq and abroad?

I look forward to your response.

Finally, a logical & calm approach to real discussion. So many people let their emotions due the talking whether they are conservaive or liberal. I also like balance. It’s sad when someone thinks they have the right way & get angry at any disagreement.

Nicely said, Anthony. I get the same response from my own liberal friends. ;) Even the ones I regularly speak with on matters political don’t entirely have a clear and accurate idea of what conservatives stand for, or why we reject some liberal articles of faith.

I’m not sure why that is, either, unless it is because conservatism is like a home-cooked meal in a Burger King world; it takes time, and most people are conditioned to be in rather a hurry.

ET

To my liberal friends

I am glad that you all believe that it is possible to be intelligent, well informed and conservative all at the same time. Many do not. I was inspired to write this after many instances where my impression is that my liberal interlocutors just assume that I am inexperienced or uniformed because of my ideology.

For those of you who want more “beef” read an old book called “Two Cheers for Capitalism” by Irving Kristol (Bill’s father). He explains why free markets and opportunity have been the ways to make the poor better off and why most government programs to do the same have not worked.

If Dems had managed to stop the Republicans in the last elections, they would have a less urgent need to understand their opponents. But the extent of the Republican victory came as a big surprise to many Dems. Some still believe that it didn’t really happen.

Zeek

No, I don’t understand the terrorists. Their grievances completely perplex me and their desire to murder family, my friends and me is incomprehensible to me. I don’t understand blind hatred and I suspect that it requires a character flaw to get inside their heads. The 9/11 attacks make no sense to me as a civilized person. There was no military goal and it resulted in the destruction of the terror networks. I would like to understand their motivation, but more important is to stop them from being successful. Since 9/11 there has not been a terror attack in the U.S. Since I believe the terrorists and his men planned follow up attacks in the U.S., I consider it a success that we have stopped them so far. I suppose there are some people who understand enough about their organization and goals to stop them most of the time.

There is a difference between the competition between political parties and the war on terror. I don’t think we ever really understood the motivation of the Nazis, but we managed to defeat them. On several occasions I have seen a list of Osama’s demands listed on this blog. They are unacceptable and some are impossible for us to comply with even if we wanted to.

It is hard to understand someone who still complains about the “Andalusia debacle” referring to the Muslim loss of Spain in 1492. I don’t hold a grudge that long.

Jack, the whole middle east society pretty much has a “generational memory”. That’s why there will never be peace. Any country trying to get two middle eastern peoples to have peace between them is forgetting this fact. Most muslims refer to the crusades as a complaint against the western world. Are there terrorists in other cultures? I’m sure there are. A terrorist simply wants to destroy & “terrorize” everyone that doesn’t belong to his group. It isn’t rational in western thought. It is anger brought to it’s ultimate level. Total hatred of everything the individual is uncomfortable with.

Anthony,

I admire your courage to stand up for your beliefs, especially in a hostile environment such as the liberal college setting. I would like to augment your answer to the terrorist question should you so allow it.

I soundly believe that the entire modivation behind this new kind of terrorism is Islam. Lets face it, they aren’t called religious fanatics. They are called religious fundamentalist. As in they believe and follow the fundamentals of the religion. And that religion is Islam. Islam is not a religion of peace and those who disagree with me are fools. Read the koran. Study actual commentaries made on the koran that aren’t edited western versions that are spood fed to you via the media. Islam is no the religion of peace, tolerance and acceptance that it is made out to be in the west. For example, I cannot think of any other major religion that allows the subjugation of women besides Islam. Under the rules of Islam, it is ok to have more than one wife. And as a matter of fact, their prophet Muhammed had many wifes. In Islam, it is acceptable for a husband to beat her wife if she does not submit sexually to him. The only other major religion in the world that openly allowed polyigamy was Mormanism, which denounced and rejected that belief officially in the 1800’s. Also, in Islam, any lying, cheating, or deception which advances the spread of Islam. This means that the crap that they feed you on Oprah about Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance is a load of bull. The goal and the mindset of these terrorists is the complete destruction of western culture, at any cost. This means their very lives, if it comes to it. I would also like to point out that if you study and understand the Koran and Islam, you will realize that the only way for a Muslim to be absolutely, 100%, without a doubt sure of him being able to go to heaven when he dies is to fight and die in a Jihad, or holy war. A very strong incentive to strap that pack of C-4 to your back and pull the cord on a bus full of women and children in downtown Tel Aviv. Islam is a religion of extreme devotion, and these terrorists are beyond devoted to their cause. And their cause is the advancement and the spread of Islam through the destruction of the west and its culture.

I would also like to point out that I am not pointing the finger at Muslims. No, there are many honest, loving, caring, and peaceful Muslims that would never carry out such dreadful atrocities that we see on the news. But I do hold those Muslims accountable to the following piece here. You are a part of a religion that knowningly slaughters innocent civilians everyday in the name of Allah. These men and women go out and kill themselves in the name of Allah hoping for a sure ticket to paradise. (Oh and by the way, one of the perks of going to paradise is reward of sleeping with 40 virgins. And what do the women get out of going to paradise? Getting to be one of those virgins?) And whats worse is that you cannot simply write these people off as fanatics that misinterpreted an aspect of the Koran. The Koran is quite clear about Jihad and its goals. Jihad is not some cultural or spirtual war that the liberal media would like you to believe. It is terrorism.

If you are a Muslim and you are reading this, I sincerey apologize for my harsh language in this comment. However, its validity cannot be denied. You cannot sit back in your chair and say that terrorists are not modivated by the male centered teachings of Muhammed and Islam. And I’m not just being some paranoid American casting blame on a cultural minority. Bobby Kennedy was killed in 1968 by a Muslim male fundamentalist. Athletes were kidnapped and murdered at the Munich Olymipic Games in 1972 by male Mulism fundamentalists. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over my male Muslim fundamentalists. In 1983, the Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by male Muslim fundamentalists. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked by male Muslim fundamentalists. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens by male Muslim fundamentalists. In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed by male Muslim fundamentalists. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by male Muslim fundamentalists. On 9/11, 4 airplanes were hijacked, and 2 crashed into the WTC, one into the pentagon, and the other was diverted by its passengers and crashed in a field. Thats right. These planes were hijacked by male Muslim fundamentalists. The pattern is clear. And Anthony, so is your answer.

Jack,

“I don?t think we ever really understood the motivation of the Nazis, but we managed to defeat them.”

Do you truely belive that?

World Domination? Does that sound at all familiar?

I belive that the government that governs from the middle governs best. That way we all get at least something of what we want, and the only folks that are truely pissed are those at the fringes.

Much has been made of the Republicans recent rise to power. Do you really see any difference? This is the just the same bullshit with a different package.

Until there is proper term limits there will never be government “by the people”. Those that are in office will continue to waste the taxpayers good money while setting themselves up for their next election run. Democrat, Republican, Liberal, or Conservitive, it’s all the same, Jack.

The people of this country deserve better representation than what we have been getting.

Mr Matel,
What were you thinking?! Liberals couldn’t be expected to come up with anything on their own! As Jarandhel pointed out, they obviously need direction since the best they can come up with is Kerry and Hilery.

Mark,

“The only other major religion in the world that openly allowed polyigamy was Mormanism, which denounced and rejected that belief officially in the 1800’s.”

The Mormons only renounced polygamy because of pressure from the U.S. government. To this day there are enclaves of fundamentalist Mormons in Northern Arizona and Southern Utah where polygamy thrives.

I am disappointed in Matel’s little rant. You are supposed to list the Conservative Position in addition to the rest. Why didn’t you? Could it be that there is nothing Conservative in the Repuglican Party now except the Religious Nuts? What happened to controlling the deficit? Balanced Budget? Smaller Government? State’s Rights? Does being pro-military mean you must slash the budget of Veteran’s Hospitals? Whatever happened to Repuglican’s being good in foriegn affairs? Have you taken a walk in Singapore lately?

It took the Democrats 40 years to run the country into the ground. The Repuglicans only takes 10 to destroy it.

“Know your enemy”? Great post Jack.

I love it when you pick fights with liberals - such fun! It must feel great to kick them while they’re down.

After reading your post, I remembered this little oddity from waaaaay back in March - “I was once afflicted with liberalism, but I recovered…”

Sooooo, let’s see, the uber-conservative Jack was once a liberal who praises Bill Clinton quite often on this site. So Jack, when are you going to “recover” from your currently popular conservatism? When you become eligible for SS perhaps? ;-)

Jenny

Clinton was a good president. He did many of the things I thought were good (NAFTA, welfare reform) He tried to pull his party toward the center. I am not an ultra conservative, just an ordinary one.

BTW - I don’t expect to depend on SS. We all have about 40 years to build net worth and most of us should be able to do that.

As for a liberal past, there is the saying variously attributed and inconsistently quoted to the effect that if you are not a leftist when you are twenty you have no heart and if you are still a leftist when you are forty you have no brain. I have met too many compassionate young conservatives and smart old liberals to believe that is always true, but I do believe that experience with reality makes a person less enthusiastic about utopian solutions and these tend to be more on the left.

I have long tried to figure out what makes a person conservative versus liberal. I don’t have a definitive answer, but I have some ideas.

If you think humans are perfectible, you are more likely to be a liberal. A conservative is more likely to trust institutions with a track record to keep imperfect people in line.

Liberty and justice are both important, but somewhat conflicting. A conservative likes to err on the side of liberty; liberals lean toward justice. Also conservatives are much less interested in equality.

There are more, but that would be for another post.

Returning to the Clinton thing, I have a personal quirk in that I like to support my president. That is one reason I supported Clinton. I would have supported president Kerry. If you look up my posts, you will see that I wrote on October 30 in a “generic piece” about either winner:

“In his recent video, Osama bin Laden reminded us about America’s real enemies. President Kerry/Bush faces many challenges in the next years. He needs your support. Please put aside your partisan rancor and have some faith in the judgment of your fellow citizens. Admit the possibility that they might be right. This is America, after all. In four years time the verdict may go your way. Until then, Bush/Kerry is your president and mine and he deserves our support.”

Jack,

OK, you’ve got me. I don’t really understand what a conservative is. I used to think that a conservative stood for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty. (OK, I never really quite believed the last point.) Then Bush came along and ran up the deficit, pushed executive authority to the limit, and brought us the Patriot Act. Individual liberty is less respected now that at any point in my lifetime. Anyone who embarrasses the Bush administration is accused by many conservatives of committing the crime of treason.

Another point, and I’ve saved this for last because it is the most contentious: We learned during the Clinton administration that conservatives think it is terribly, terribly important for the President to always be direct and tell the truth, even about a fairly trivial personal matter. Then the Bush administration comes along and sells a war on claims that his advisors (if not Bush himself) had to realize were dubious at best. But that is OK, we have since learned, because they didn’t claim the danger was “imminent” (actually, “immediate”), and the important thing is spreading democracy. (A cause that conservatives never seemed to give a damn about before, unless the alternative was Communism.)

Despite governing in a manner completely contradictory to most of their stated values, Bush remains wildly popular with conservatives. So please, enlighten us all as to what the a conservative actually is.

P.S. I don’t want to focus too much on your individual beliefs, which are really beside the point, but I do think that your posts show that you are more of a moderate than a conservative.

Rocky,

Yes I do know my history about the Mormons. I do know that the government actually sent troops into Utah to quell the problems that arose there. I do know that Utah was delayed in receiving its statehood because of all the polygamy there. But the practice of polyigamy was officially denounced in order for Utah to become a state into the Union. And besides the fact that Mormanism is a borderline cult doesn’t help that either. I only mentioned it as a major religion because of all the people in the world that are Mormons.

Even if there are enclaves of polygimists out in the southwest United States, that takes nothing away from the point that was I was trying to make earlier. That point was that Islam was the modivating piece behind the terrorism. You’ve just graded my term paper, and given it a D because of a spelling error. Instead of looking at the content and coming up with a relevant response, you go and nit pick insignifcant because thats the only thing you’ve got.

Nice article, Jack. I notice you didn’t once refer to yourself as a Republican. Are you disavowing the Republican Party because it’s no longer conservative and therefore no longer represents you?

Interesting discussion that tells us not much about anything. As a former conservative myself (now a moderate) and graduate student/instructor in political science, I’d give a lot to know exactly what Republicans stand for these days. They certainly aren’t the Reagan type conservatives I grew up with who espoused limited government. They also seem to know nothing about the old conservative demands for fiscal responsibility. As for liberty…lol…it is dying to thunderous applause as Padme says.

As for the Republican dominance at the national level…it is likely to continue for another 10 years at worst, 20 years at most. Part of the reason is structural because Congressional Districts have been gerrymandered to the point where it is impossible in 90% of districts for the opposition party to win. Assuming the parties split the remaining 10% of seats…there will be little turnover for quite some time. State governments can change this by reforming the redistricting process but that would mean a willingness by the party in power to return power to the people. And that, my friends, isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.

Jack-
It’s this culture war paradigm that makes being understood as a conservative so difficult. The moderate voices are pushed aside for the loudest, most combative, most competitive ones. Because combat and competition often preclude helping or negotiating with “the enemy”, it means your ideas rarely get related except as a threat against their values, and you certainly don’t want to let them get involved in discussions about how to do things right. After all, they will pull things to their ultimately wrong perspective, and that would just mess things up.

What’s not seen is that when two sides like ours enter into a dialogue, they often are capable of hashing out compromises that are better and often more insightfully done than either side’s original position. The culture war paradigm, in this way, is a paralyzing, impractical framework for political discussion.

Go out there and look at the bookshelves, especially with your conservative authors. So much shelf space is given to authors who exhort republicans to alienate themselves from liberals, overwhelm and destroy their ideology, and which smugly wonder why anybody would think the way they do. Then you have leaders up in Washington who are constantly taking potshots at liberals and their principles. They portray us as traitors, our leaders as quislings with the real enemies out there, our philosophy as one aligned with all the tyrannies of the world, past and present. This is the picture of conservatism we get: loud, obnoxious, slanderous, and a threat to our way of life, our culture and freedom. And why would we think so? Because that is what one’s enemies look like, especially when they’ve become so passionately antagonistic, so unsympathetic.

My fear is that your side will not back down, but rather exhaust itself, the costs of constant combatitiveness unweighed. I’d just as soon our people wake up and realize that as long as our politicians divide America in such stark terms, and tell us that the other side is a threat to us, we will not know just how great the consensus really is.

Know us as your friends and neighbors. Calm the passions of the fight, and focus more on the facts than the biases, the truthes rather than the interpretations. We all get it wrong- question is how hard and well we do in trying to get it right.

I’m getting pretty exhausted with postings whose sole subject is “the enemy”. Truth is, our interests are not so diametrically opposed. We all want to win the Iraq war, and bring our soldiers home. We want our soldiers protected by the best armor, with vehicles that run well. Partisan bickering tries to make it about making the president or Rumsfeld look bad, but it ignores the life and death issue of how well those vehicles protect our soldiers, and how well those vehicles run.

We need to take a good, long, hard look at our policies and stop making this about party.

Jack, it’s rather hypocritical to suggest people, “know their enemy,” when you don’t even know the terrorists. Trying to dismiss them as lunatics that would require a character flaw to understand reveals your arrogance. The advice to “know your enemy” is good advice, so why don’t you do it rather than just preach it?

Mark-
Islam isn’t the primary motivating force. It’s dissatisfaction with despotic governments that are more politically western than native. This is a cultural phenomenon whose origins are fairly recent. The Crusades, often complained about now, are not actually that high in the concern of the former Islamic culture. For the old Caliphates, the Crusades were a border skirmish. It is only now, with a few hundred years of Great Powers imperialism weighing down on things that Israel became a major sticking point.

As for the Qu’ran, it is much more useful to study it rather than the commentaries. You have to be careful about certain ones. Some are modern, part of movements like Wahhabism, which started in the 1700s. Others are more contemporary to the Koran, called the Hadith. The thing to understand with them is that they do not have the authority of the Qu’ran, and their authenticity and provenance are often a matter of debate and discussion.

In the Quran itself, there are prohibitions on total war, against terrorism, and exhortations to exclude those who are not warriors from the battle. Property is not to be destroyed or looted. Conversions are not forced, though other faiths were taxed. Jews and Christians long coexisted within the realms of Islam. There are ancient communities of Christians still extant in places like Iraq. Tariq Aziz, former prime minister to Saddam Hussein was born a Chaldean Catholic named Michael Yuhanna. Communities persist in Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East.

The Anti-Semitism of recent times is a product of the colonial associations that the founding of the state brought along with it. The secularists of the Baath Party (founded by a Christian!) once distributed a flyer proclaiming God’s three mistakes as Dust, Flies, and Jews. Charming. Point is, though, it was as much a cultural reaction as anything else. They may wrap themselves in the justifications of the Qu’ran, but so do Christian despots.

You ever notice how Arab Newspapers never call them Suicide Bombings? They are always Martyrdom Operations. Difference being, Suicides are damned, Martyrs are not. Suicide is a major sin in Islam. The only justification is the political one, of striking back against oppressors. Of course, there are religious authorities, self-proclaimed and not, who back this, but like the Popes of the past who backed wars against the Protestants and Muslims, these figures are as often as not pursuing worldly power as well.

Promises of 40 virgins in paradise may actually be promises of 40 raisins, depending on your translation! Regardless, it is more of a cultural interpretation of the Qu’ran, the way going to war and fighting Saracens, Moors, Englishmen or papists was a cultural interpretation of the bible.

Question is, are we responsible for how our religions have been made to serve evil ends? Are all Jews responsible when a fundamentalist guns down a mosque full of people? Were all Catholics responsible for what the Croats did in the Yugoslav Civil War, all those belonging to the Orthodox Church responsible for the actions of the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, or of the Russians in Chechnya? When a Hindu Fundamentalist torches a train full of Muslims, are all Hindus to blame. When the Muslim Fundamentalists retaliate, are all Muslims on the subcontinent to blame? When Bush invades Iraq, are all Methodists to be held accountable?

An entire Religion encompassing a billion people cannot be blamed for the actions of a few of its fanatics, especially a few male fundamentalists. You can speak of Islamofascists, and say they are the enemy, but in the end, all you are justifying is the very thing that caused much of this trouble in history in the first place: The domination of the Middle East by imperial powers, by France and England, back in their days of greatest power. Do we have to repeat their mistakes taking care of the consequences of their mistakes? I think not. Ditch the prejudice. It will only lead our country to repeat a particularly nasty stretch of history

Before you say the pattern is clear, you had better be much more familiar with the real pattern than you’ve evinced yourself to be.

I will get to the other post, but since Zeek’s is last and most direct, I will do that now.

I would like to get to know how the terrorist think, but I don’t have the time or skills. I know that thousands of my fellow Americans are working on that task. But I am not sure we are clear about what that means.

I read a subtext in your post (maybe I am wrong) that we should understand the terrorists in that we should understand the justification for their opinions. Nothing can justify the 9/11 attacks, since the planners had to know that it would not further their military goals. Nothing can justify the current insurgent targeting of civilians in Iraq. These guys must understand that it will make people worse off in their own country. They are targeting progress because they know that they can benefit most from chaos, death and destruction. I can’t understand that and we need to understand it only to the extent we need to stop it.

I worked hard to understand Muslim opinion (not the violent kind). I read widely and interviewed scores of Muslims. I have some appreciation for their opinions. But they are not the enemy and it is insulting to lump them in with people who happily kill and maim fellow Muslims in order to make a political point.

Jack, you put forth a fine effort most of the time, to come across as a reasonable, intelligent, and rational conservative. And then every once in awhile you reveal another side of how your mind works as you did at the end of this article when you said:

I suspect that many of you believe that if I just had more information and understanding, I would come around to liberalism. What do I say to that? When hell freezes over, we will continue the struggle on the surface of the ice.

This is most revealing if your use of the small case L in liberalism above was not a typo and your other writings would indicate it was not a typo.
So, let’s be clear about Capital L liberalism - which means b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
It does not appear this is what you meant by liberalism in your article. So, let’s move on to your use of the small case “liberalism”.

Small case liberalism and conservativism are in fact, very contextually relative and fluid terms which have different meanings in different contexts of topic, level of education, level of experience, time and history, and geography, etc.

Assuming your use of the word is anchored in the present, in the US, and its political context, and assuming you are using a definition similar to that found in the FreeDictionary.com :

a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

But, it is not the definition of liberalism that is revealing. It is the position you take relative to liberalism that is revealing. It is a statement that reveals that you oppose the word, its meaning, and those who subscribe to it, by the same method that one takes a vow to a one true religion and against all others. Your commitment to conservativism is not rational, reasonable, or informed. Your commitment to never being, becoming, or siding with liberalism as you say in your article is not conditional - not conditioned by time, or meaning (which you do not define), nor by context of anykind.

For you, according to your statement quoted above, liberalism is like a false religion enunciated by a false prophet which causes you to react in a highly prejudicial and unreasoned and irrational way by stating “if I just had more information and understanding, I would come around to liberalism. What do I say to that? When hell freezes over,”

According to this statement, no amount of information nor understanding could ever persuade you of the merits to subscribing to liberalism. This would appear to be a statement very akin to that of racists who say ‘No matter what the caliber, education, quality of character, intelligence, or merit of behavior, I will never allow my daughter to marry a person of that color.’

Your statement reflects one of the most pervasive and debilitating aspects of the American party political system. It creates adversaries whose commitment to oppose each other’s views will override any and all understanding, information, evidence, rationality, reasonableness or redefinitions in the context of time and change.

And for this politically prejudicial reason alone, America will never achieve her great promise of becoming a land of liberty, justice, and opportunity for the pursuit of happiness for all.
Nor will America for this reason, likely ever see the unity and indivisibility she displayed ever so perfectly in her resolve to defeat oppression and fascism in WWII.

Maybe the word concervative needs to be looked at from some different eyes.
Back in the 1940’s when I was in school, conservatinve and liberal were not used much. The label of strict or loose constructionist was used to describe how one looked upon the constitution. That in turn was their approach to the situations of society as they came and went or even hung around for awhile. The loose constructionist of that time would today be refered to as a liberal. The liberal would see things under a big umbrella or all encomposing arena of thought. The strict constructionist of that day would today be called a conservative and would look more to the absolute wording and meaning of the constitution. Both liberal and conservative do not really represent the loose and strict constructionist very well. I consider Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, and others of the same ilk as moderates, not conservatives. This explaination may help to understand conservative/liberal labels a bit more.

Mark,

“You’ve just graded my term paper, and given it a D because of a spelling error. Instead of looking at the content and coming up with a relevant response, you go and nit pick insignifcant because thats the only thing you’ve got.”

No actually I am just making sure that you understand that when you make comparison like that next time you get your facts right. If I wanted to grade a paper on spelling I would look to tomd’s or steve’s writings. Now there is some atrocious spelling

Now for the rest of the paper.

If Islam was as you say it is, it would either dominate all of the other religions as a world power, or, it wouldn’t exist at all. As Stephen pointed out, there are billions of Muslims on this planet, including millions of Muslims in America. If the case was as you make it, we would see violence on a massive scale, here, in this country. I am more afraid of our own, home grown lunatics, than I am of violent Muslim sects in this country.
The World Trade Center was a symbol of American financial dominance in the world, and it took two tries to accomplish their goal.

If a Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic, do you blame the religion, or the bomber? Was the Spannish Inquisition the fault of all Christianity, or just the fundamentalist few?

We bitch about how uncivilized these guys are when they behead someone.
Did you know that the guillotine was last used for an execution as recently as 1977?

Western powers have been hosing the Middle East for the better part of the last two centuries. When oil was discovered it only made the situation worse.

These folks have a culture that has been around for more than two millenia. They understood mathematics before most western cultures even existed.
We should take the time to better understand them before we paint them with such a broad brush.

tom, it never ceases to amaze me why folks insist on discarding the dictionary while at the same time insisting on their freedom to debate.

Debate is pointless without the dictionary. The tool of debate is words. Without common and verifiable definitions for words, debate amounts to little more than an exercise in anarchy.

But this fact never seems to dissuade folks from writing their own personal and unique dictionaries in their own minds so they can advantage themselves in their own minds.

Jarandhel, Jack’s post speaks volumes. You just missed the reflection his words mirrored, I think.

There have been several references here to Mormanism (proper designation is The Church of Latter Day Saints) as being a “cult” IT IS NOT, that polygamy is openly advocated and supported IT IS NOT. I am a Southerner who had the opportunity to live in Utah for a number of years. During that time I was able to learn quite a bit about the LDS faith. Also I have a number of friends who are LDS.

Sure there are radical obscure groups that still live in out of the way places practicing polygamy just as there are fringe groups in all religions who take their belief “too far and for too long”.

“Mormonism” is by far more of a way of life than strictly a religious faith. There are incredible life lessons to be learned. Mormons are a very close family group. There are family nights, visitation nights, etc. There is no welfare in the Morman life. A person or family in need is taken care of by his peers. He or she pays back by helping someone else when thay are in need. If your house burns down, they build you another one.

Mormans stockpile a year’s supply of provisions in the event of “bad times”.

The entire polygamy thing was taken out of context. Many decades ago the Mormon hierarchy permitted polygamy for a short while because numbers had dwindled and they needed to propgate the faith. There was a cut off point for it.

Young Mormans go on a “mission” when they reach a certain age. It is a right of passage to the next level. They spread the word about their faith around the world. These are the people tou see with shirts and ties on riding bicycles. Not much wrong with that.

I confess I don’t know much about their political affiliations but I don’t think it’s too bad. Orin Hatch was a pretty good senator.

Jack’s post speaks volumes

Really? All I’m seeing here is that conservatism is misunderstood (it’s a Red thing…), which just begs the question of what exactly it IS.

Woody, see my last reply to Jack, 7 comments back.

Look in the mirror.
The enemy is you.
The enemy is us.
The enemy is:
(1) irresponsible and unaccountable government,
(2) and, lazy and apathetic voters

Both are ultimately responsible.
Neither Republicans or Democrats offer viable solutions. All Democrats, Republicans, and the vast Executive branch are the problem. There are always some who want to control others. Not serve the people. The two main parties restrict third parties from getting onto ballots and debates, and both main parties engage in illegal election fraud. They like the abused system the way it is, and all of its many perks (for them that is), and want to keep it that way. This is what happens when there is an imbalance of power.

The imbalance is:
_____________________________________________
(1) irresponsible and unaccountable government:
____(1.a) A vast structure of the Executive Branch:
a gang of over two million unaccountable persons that are neither seen nor heard as they irresponsibly throttle our freedoms and prosperity; subtly growing and securing more and more power; one of the first steps toward totalitarianism, is the destruction of the parliamentary/legislative branches of government;

____(1.b) a relatively smaller 435 in Congress:
and their hundreds of thousands employees, mostly a fumbling and stumbling group that is too busy piling on pork-barrel and subsidies to special interests, gathering $millions while trying to get re-elected, voting themselves raises, and busy seducing voters into the perpetual petty partisan bickering and politics.

Both branches lack transparency, which leads to irresponsibility and unaccountability. They have, over time, hidden and over-complicated things to keep the voters from really knowing what is happening.
_____________________________________________
(2) The voters are either seduced to the petty partisan politics, and wallowing in the endless bickering, squabbling, and finger-pointing, OR increasingly apathetic (but concerned), tired of it all, resigned to the futility of their votes having no effect, don’t know what to do about it, and are mostly waiting for history to repeat itself, waiting for the inevitable revolution or civil war;
_____________________________________________

But, it doesn’t have to be that way.
There’s one small chance left to voters that may restore the balance of power.
But, only the voters can change it now, because government will never reform itself.
The monkey is now on the voters’ back, and they’d better open their eyes and do something soon, because time is running out.

David R Remer
My dictionary defines conservative: tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these.
The same dictionary defines liberal:
not restricted to the literal meaning; not strict

I use those guidelines in how I use the word conservative and liberal. Since most of these postings are about government and the policies of political parties, I prefer to use the strict and loose interpretations of the constitution as a descriptor as opposed to the always changing liberal and conservative.

Tom, and with the plethora of personal dictionaries comes the Tower of Babyl.

The Church of Jesus Christ and of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) also (LDS) membership is in the millions. The reason for high membership is that they practice a baptism ritual which is proformed to bring into the church membership people who have died. Many Jewish people were baptised into the LDS church. The church was to stop baptising Jewish people but there are reports from time to time that they have not stopped the practice.

“I would look to tomd’s or steve’s writings. Now there is some atrocious spelling”
Yeah, Maybe my spelling is atrocious, and my grammer is too. I never claimed to be a scholor but I think people can understand what I mean.
I base my opinions on what I consider common sense and I see very little common sense on the liberal side of the fence. Of course I might be spelling this wrong and it is only my opinion.

tomd, the definition of common sense is a sense that is common. Since, the liberal/conservative split in this country is about 50%, stating the liberals lack common sense is illogical, by definition. For that matter the converse is also true. Saying conservatives have common sense which liberals lack is also illogical, by definition.

It’s not the spelling, tomd, it is the thinking and the parts that make it up, i.e. words and meanings.

David

Don’t read too much into my use of punctuation. I regret to say that part of my education is my weakest. I generally don’t proofread well.

I will address your points, but let me also say that I don’t do well with dictionary definitions either. I usually need an example to work off. Words acquire connotations, especially political words. Consider the decline and fall of the term progressive.

I don’t think your dictionary definition describes most American liberals. Let me count the ways:

This is what you wrote: “A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.”

Natural goodness. Liberals don’t believe in this. Otherwise why all the regulations, speech codes and resort to the courts?

Autonomy of the individual – I don’t think so. How would you explain affirmative action, based completely on group, not individual criteria? How about all the regulations designed to insulate people from their own poor decisions. A sovereign individual makes decisions good and bad and suffers the consequences.

Civil and political liberties – Liberalism has overshot the goal here. Civil and political liberties should protect people from the arbitrary whims of the government. When the government steps in to protect the rights of some individuals from other individuals it steps into dangerous ground.

Consent of the governed – Good. Keep the courts out of the legislative business and you have consent. Maybe Roe v Wade and same sex marriage should be decided legislatively.

Protection from arbitrary authority. David, you are a land owner, right. Each year you have fewer rights on how to manage your property. You might easily have the use of your property taken if a court decides your property is habitat to some sort of animal you never saw or heard of. I don’t oppose the idea of protecting species, mind you, but if the whole society decides it is worth doing, the whole society should pay the bills, not the unfortunate landowner.

I don’t believe people are good or bad in general. They have the capacity to be both.

So, if liberals were actually like the definition, I wouldn’t have a problem.

Liberalism in the 19th Century American form – i.e. free markets, free labor, personal responsibility, individual not group rights. – is where I and many conservatives live.

As I said, I don’t do definitions well. I need examples. Let me give you examples of people who are liberal: Teddy Kennedy Tops the list. He is joined by Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman and most prominent entertainers. My experience is that I disagree with these people most of the time and if they met me they wouldn’t like what I stood for. And I don’t think an outside observer would tie these guys to your definition.

David:

Jarandhel, Jack’s post speaks volumes. You just missed the reflection his words mirrored, I think.

Not at all. But in the spirit of trying to know your enemy, I was attempting to give him the opportunity to expound and perhaps change that impression.

Ironically, I have been trying to get to know the enemy more lately… been reading a very interestin book called American Ideologies lately,originally published in 1971, that gives insight into the roots of modern political ideologies. At the same time, I’m finding it quite thougth provoking as many things seem to have changed in the intervening years. Capitalism and Liberalism were once very strongly linked, and according to the reading I am currently doing, the Liberalism of the day sounds more like the Conservatism of the day. It’s also interesting to see an environment where Communism and Socialism could be considered seperately, though it was admitted that even at that time there was popular confusion over the distinction, particularly as they manifested in third-world countries.

I haven’t gotten to the chapter that talks about the roots of conservatism yet, but already the discussion of capitalism and the liberalism of the day have influenced how I percieve modern conservatism. Modern conservatism seems to have very strong connections to capitalism without really taking into account the changes that the super-corporation has brought to the free market, for example. It also seems rooted in the old liberalism, and personal sovereignty… what they often refer to as “individualism”. Strangely, this attitude evaporates in certain arenas. Usually the ones where religion has taken a strong influencing role, it seems to me.

I might have to pick up that book of Jack’s after I finish this one, and maybe some others that can give me more insight into the shape of politics between then and now, and how the conservative and liberal movements have changed. It really is a fascinating study.

tomd,

Did you read the entire post, or did just that line catch your eye?

Jack,

I have, on occasion, listened to Limbaugh, and Hannity. These are the gentlemen that, together with their sycophants, seem to be defining the Conservative movement. They both have stated that they would like to see Liberalism wiped from the face of the map, or at best, kept in a museum somewhere so that future generations might see what Liberalism looked like. They try to define Liberalism in general, and Liberals in particular as “the enemy” of today’s Conservatives.
Separately these two have turned the tenor of American politics into one of an adversarial battle that has polorized America as never before.

In my lifetime, I don’t remember seeing a political landscape such as what we have had in the last 10 years.

The Sixties were nothing like this.

Jarandel

“Two Cheers for Capitalism” is out of print, but you can still get it on Amazon. Some of the arguments are dated, but you can still see the drift.

The book you are reading now sounds like it is explaining what I mean. What we define as American liberalism and conservatism are built on the same basis. They are heresies of the same secular religion, much like fascism and communism are both based on collectivism, both of our ideologies are based on individualism. But you know heresies can be very serious thing and iconoclasts are never popular among the believers.

Rocky, the ‘60’s were worse. We had Americans holding guns on and shooting other Americans in the streets, riots and neighborhoods gutted by arson, and rampant looting of shops and stores, racial lynchings and bombings of churches and little girls in those churches.

We had the national guard opening fire on protest students a few of whom were reportedly throwing rocks and bottles.

NO, it was much, much worse than today. But, today could become much, much worse tomorrow, and on that I think we can agree.

Jack, your response deserves an adequate one in turn. I will have more time this evening.

J. Anthony. You think you have the advantage because you are surrounded in a sea of liberalism? Try growing up in Mississippi as a liberal. Try explaining to your best friend’s mother that you are not going to worship Satan because you play Everquest online, and explaining to your friends that while they might not agree with a homosexual lifestyle, god does say that he loves all human beings, and no… no.. he does not say that he hates fags.

You think it’s brave to debate a bunch of liberals at college? Try going to an evangelical Baptist church and debating whether or not Gandhi is going to hell.

I certainly do have rational conservative friends that I can have a calm debate with. And I certainly know crazed liberals who I can’t have a discussion with. But I too can wait for a conservative to play their trump card “Do you hate freedom and liberty and our troops?” And I too can hold my tongue and have a rational conversation that ends with them saying “you are not a typical liberal.”

I have had the opposite life as you. In Mississippi, I was on the debate team and the mock government groups in high school. My friends, and teachers, would say “I had no idea a rational argument could be presented against Reagan’s administration.”

The truth is, at the end of the day, that our utopian ideologies hold up on the debate floor, but when you get down to what is actually happening on the ground, no situation conforms to a party line, and there are many different ways to achieve the same solution. The other truth is, that an Amish person’s life is just as beautiful as a hippy living on a commune. Should the hippy become Amish, and should the Amish become a hippy?

And, at the end of the day, isn’t it ironic that the poster children of conservativism and liberalism seem so much alike?

Jack:

Thanks, I’ll keep an eye out for that book as well.

It’s very interesting to me that at the time the book I’m reading was written, capitalism was firmly connected with the idea of liberalism. The idea that liberals would be accused of being communists, etc, really doesn’t seem to have occurred to the authors. The distinction the authors make between communism and socialism is also interesting to note, and is something that modern conservatives do not seem to make.

By the way, it’s hard to take you seriously about believing there’s a place for liberal ideas and balance when you also say you’d never support any of them. That pretty much is partisanship, when you believe so firmly in your ideology that you could never believe any idea presented by an opposing one, no matter the idea or the context, and would fight them on it.

“He who cannot agree with his enemies is controlled by them.”
— Chinese Proverb

Jack, reviewing your recent posts, I’m quite amused by the claim that conservatives, as a breed, “know the enemy”. Are liberals pacifists, as you suggest in your previous post? I’m sure some are, but certainly not all - do you know that many people who oppose the Iraq war supported the war in Afghanistan?) Are liberals all socialists, like the French? I believe very few American liberals are.

Many of the posts in the Red column start out by attacking a “strawman” liberal position that very few liberals actually hold - for instance, a completely pacifist response to 9/11, complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, actively encouraging teens to have sex, or giving welfare to people that are healthy and able but choose to “go fishing” instead. Are these your “enemies”? if so, then, Jack, don’t crow too much about winning the debate for military readiness - there’s almost no-one on the other side.

As I see it, the core of liberalism in the US is valuing individual freedom and economic stability, at the personal level. The core of traditional conservatism is valuing individual and economic freedom. Most people fit somewhere along a spectrum, and I can see arguments both sides of it, and I think generally which outlook to follow in a particular situation depends on the situation. Debates need to be tied to specifics.

On the other hand - the core of modern conservatism appears to be passing laws that benefit the wealthy, and allowing government control of certain individual choices related to one particular view of morality. In my view, it’s not an ideologically coherent movement, nor is it one that has been politically consistent, even over the last 10 years. (If you don’t believe me, look back at the “contract with America” and see how much of that contract has been discarded.)

You do a great job of debating for it, but even you, Jack, are often driven into a corner defending the excesses of the neo-cons. To defend the search for WMD in Iraq, you’re forced to argue that this was not the overriding reason given to the public for the invasion - which is impossible to deny, for anyone that bothers to go back and re-read (or remember) the talk leading up to it. To defend the attempt to “reform” SS you’re forced to argue that yes, phase it out, that would be a good thing. To defend the not-very-secret platform of the state Republican party that spawned Rove, Bush, DeLay, and many more of the most powerful men in the party, you have to say that yes, there are things you disagree with, but you’ll support them anyway because these men are your “friends”.

When you choose your own topic, I often agree with you - at least to a point. But when you’re leaping to defend a current Bushie talking point, you’re often forced to fall back on one of those debating tricks that sometimes tricks a few people - like picking up a particular anecdote that justifies a claim - but doesn’t really hold water when you think it through. You ought to think about why that is, some cold morning when you’re not into ice skating.

Are these your “enemies”? if so, then, Jack, don’t crow too much about winning the debate for military readiness - there’s almost no-one on the other side.

This is a point that I have made before and I think it bears repeating: The most left-wing of the Democratic presidential hopefuls, Dennis Kucinich, wanted to reduce the US military budget by 20%, which would still leave it by far the largest in the world. John Kerry campaigned on increasing the size of the military. Regardless of what you think of the pacifism, or the idea of drastically curtailing the size of the US military, these ideas has no traction whatsoever in the Democratic Party.

David,

Yes, I remember that well. I also remember the “free” haircuts.

I would only dissagree with you in that, then we didn’t have the vocal members of the opposition (not enemies), calling for the disollution of the opposing party.

Rocky, David Remer, tomd, Mark

Have we reduced ourselves to spelling critics?

In this thread Rocky tells Mark “If I wanted to grade a paper on spelling I would look to tomd’s or steve’s writings. Now there is some atrocious spelling”

“Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”. - Jesus

From time to time I have observed spelling and grammatical errors in the posts of virtually every contributer to Watchblog. Rarely are these errors severe enough to distort the content of the message. An occasional error of this type does not in itself imply a lack of topic knowledge.

So Rocky points fingers at tomd and Steve for poor spelling in his response to Mark. Later David Remer (which surprises me greatly) opines to Tom about the importance of the dictionary, etc.

I do not believe in speaking for or against the actions o0f anyone so I will not address how I feel that Mark took the time to criticize Rocky. I have no opinion regarding David’s message to tom but, I would appreciate Rocky not referencing my writing skills in the negative when unsolicited by me.

Can we all find some common ground and agreement on some important issues.

It’s difficult to not shake my head and roll my eyes every time I see the labels start to fly (e.g. liberal, conservative, Democrat, neocon, Republican, Independent, socialist, capitalist, imperialist, religious zealot, etc.). These devices only serve to disrupt the process of finding solutions. Surely, there are some things we all agree on and get started on?

Then, that only leaves the few things remaining that we can’t all easily agree on; and then let the majority decide (while upholding the Constitution and preserving everyone’s rights).

Or, is the problem so severe that we can’t agree on anything, so we can’t resolve anything? It’s certainly starting to appear so.

Time is running out, and history will record this time as either the turning point when we stood up and made a conscientious decision to save the country - or dropped the ball and allowed ourselves to be led down the path of no return.

We need to end the tide of the abuses and corruption and lies. We have many fences to repair, at home and abroad. It is not our way of life and love of freedom that our enemies detest, as we have been told to believe.

Time is short, and it’s time for all of us who love this country, and detest totalitarianism, and truly want to be the model for humanity, to step up to the plate now and become active participants in our democracy.

Forget the labels, the parties, the petty partisanship, the differences that matter not, and join to resolve the many pressing problems facing this nation.

But, do not rely on expect government to do it themselves. Voters must now do their duty. Only the voters can make it happen, but only if voters do something new and different and learn how to make their vote count the most.

steve smith,

If I were making a remark about or to steve smith I would address my coments to steve smith, not steve.

No offence meant, but we all could use a spell check now and again. Especially those that bitch about the state of the public school system.

Rocky,

I apologize. I over-reacted, I thought you meant me.

Everybody spells something wrong now and then. We just have to be bigger than picking at it.

I believe that the public school system provides the greatest opportunity for a student at any and all grade levels to have the absolute best learning opportunity. There are life lessons to be learned that cannot be in a private school environment. When somebody steals your crayolas you have to know how to ask for them back then you have to know how to whack the guy in the head before he whacks you.

steve smith, since you addressed my I will respond. First, my reference to the dictionary had nothing whatsoever to do with spelling but to the all important use of definition of words wherever debate is conducted. So, perhaps a little more thorough reading on your part would be appropriate before sounding off about what others have said.

As to spelling, hey, it is a public forum. If spelling criticism bothers you, then don’t misspell. If spelling is not so important as content and subject, then do as I do, and ignore the comments about spelling.

I misspell, rarely, and mistype, more frequently. But, I am hardly going to make an issue out of someone critiquing my spelling or grammar - I am not here to win to a spelling bee, but, to share and debate politics and political ideas.

Let’s get back to American politics shall we, and leave the personal politics to other venues.

A lot of responses to think about. I know I brought it on myself, but there is too much for me to respond to in detail.

While I enjoy the exchange of ideas, I watch what they do to understand their real opinions. The correlation between what people say they think and what they do is not strong. This can be good thing. If people actually carried out all the stupid ideas they espouse, everyone would be in trouble.

The beauty of a free market democracy is that people don’t have to agree or even like each other in order to cooperate. I don’t care if my grocer hates me, as long as he provides good products. He doesn’t care if I hate him, as long as I give him money. That is how it should be because what he thinks is none of my business. Only what he does matters.

This is what we should strive to protect. It might mean we have to tolerate little injustices and people we don’t like.

The complaint I would have about the right is mostly the regulation of behavior that is none of their business. The complaint I have about the left is regulation behavior that is none of their business. I run into this on the left more often. I suppose there are those of you more affected by the right.

Re proofreading and grammar. I have heard that being fastidious about grammar never killed anyone, but I am not taking any chances. I don’t criticize anyone’s grammar unless I really can’t understand what he or she is writing. If not for Bill Gates and his spelling and grammar check program on Word, I would be functionally illiterate.

I will do my best to write well, but I will not be bound by the expectation of perfect spelling and grammar. It is literally beyond my ability to write mistake free prose and my poetry is even worse.

steve smith,

If you haven’t read many of my posts you might not recognize that often I try to use sarcasm and satire to make a point.

Mark was being pithy because I didn’t directly respond to his post, but instead I tried to correct a item of disinformation that he used to make his point. He responded that I might as well have given him a D on a term paper for spelling.

When we don’t take the time to do the research nescessary to make our points we look at best, uninformed, and at worst downright foolish.

Occasionally, on this count, I have been as guilty as anyone here.

As far as being picky, English is a wonderful language. It is alive with descriptive terms not found in any other language. Properly used, the English language can be a very powerfull tool. On this blog, Stephen, Jack, and David are perhaps the best at using it well.

No offence meant nor any taken.

[W]hy all the regulations, speech codes and resort to the courts?

Republicans may argue against “speech codes” then then defend a bill such as by Florida Rep. Dennis Baxley, who wishes to “give students the right to object if their professors discussed controversial issues irrelevant to the classroom,” according to a news report in one Florida paper. In other words, the legislation is intended to inhibit free speech in the classroom, and similar legislation is spreading like wildfire into a variety of states.

This is real, folks. In my opinion, this looks like a step toward U.S. totalitarianism, the kind of thing conservatives are supposed to fight against rather than embrace. It’s very scary stuff.

It’s easy to convey mood and sentiment in a entry or a comment, and because it’s just your feelings, easy just to say whatever comes to mind. What I much prefer is engagements that require investigation of the facts, examinations of the issues, and changing of one’s feelings accordingly.

The very point of a Republic like ours is the dynamics of information flow, and the shifts in the positions folks take accordingly. The Majority that rules is not some static, monolithic thing. Depending on the issues and their combination, the members of that majority can be any one of us. The point of all the civil rights laws and whatever is to allow anybody to join in that majority that they see fit. Being a minority population wise in this country does not mean one can’t be part of a minority, and that is the beauty of the system.

I believe, personally, in being well understood. I use the word “y’all”, for example, not because I want to sound too much like a Texan(which I am), but because I find it convenient to have a distinct second person plural pronoun. It helps to have the right word in the right place with the right sense. I don’t care too much about spelling, to be honest, but I do prefer fluent material in my readings.

Stephen:

“I have nothing but contempt for anyone who can spell a word in only one way.”
— Thomas Jefferson

So don’t worry, you’re in good company. ;-)

Reed,
I don’t know enough about Rep Baxley’s bill to either support it or not support it, however I don’t want a math professor to lecture a math class on his political views in class, it doesn’t matter if he is liberal or consertive.

tomd:

Do you feel the same way about Christian Creationism in Biology Class?

David Remer,

I had not posted a word in this thread due to being unavailable. When I started to review what I had missed I saw what I thought was my name being critcized for mis-spelling in a post between other parties. As Rocky pointed out, he was referring to another Steve.

You were an addressee on my post because I read into your post that you were reinforcing the spelling and use of dictionary as being paramount to postage a message or response.

I stand corrected on the issues at which you think I am at fault. Your suggestion that I should read more thoroughly before sounding off is not taken by me as constructive in this instance as my post was not “sounding off” at an issue but what I thought was a spelling deal.

Students are justified to complain if their professors spend too much time (i.e. more than a few opportune instances) to spout their beliefs regarding any subject other than the course for which they are paying for.

It is not appropriate and I would not have wanted my Calculus or Thermodynamics professor spouting religion, politics, or whatever else in class.

As for Biology, I don’t see the point in teaching Creationism since there’s no proof of it. It doesn’t hurt to mention the fact that many people believe in Creationism. No harm in that. But, it can’t be taught as fact, since there’s no proof. Evolution is a fact. Evolution does occur and there’s overwhelming evidence of it. Evolution does not mean there is no god. Creationism and Evolution do not contradict each other. Science and Religion do not contradict each other. No one needs to be offended by either. Neither should violate anyone’s rights.

Public schools should stick to the facts and things that are based in some fact. Religion does not belong in the public classroom. For those that don’t understand why, then we should ask them why they feel so compelled to want religion taught in the classroom? If we allow religion into the public classroom, which religion shall it be? To teach only one is bound to offend someone. If we teach one religion, them we must teach all of them (just to name a few):

Islam, Hindu, Protestantism, Unitarian, Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Mormon, Chinese Traditional, Confucianism, agnostic, atheist, polytheist, paganism, neo-pagan, pantheist, primal-indigenous, Juche, Spiritism, Baha’i, Jainism, African Traditional & Diasporic, Zoroastrianism, Rastafarianism, Veganism, Christians, Catholicism, Judaism, Scientoloty, New Age, Seicho-No-Ie, Kyodan, Mandeans, Vodoun, Wonbulgyo, Ch’ondogyo, Rroma, etc.

So which one is it going to be? See how ridiculous it gets? And, if we teach all of them, will there be time to teach anything else? There’s no way to have organized prayers on a captive audience in a public school, court, or government agency without offending someone. And rightly so that they be offended; especially if it’s not their religion. No one has the right to force their religious beliefs onto others, and no one has the right to restrict the religious beliefs of others.

Secularism in the public schools, courts, and government agencies does not mean that people must be secular and restricted from worshiping anyway they please…it only means exactly what the 1st Amendment says….
____________
Amendment I (Year: 1791): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
____________
….that only means government can’t lawfully force religion(s) onto people, and the government can’t lawfully prohibit free exercise of religion.

It’s sad and disturbing that the wisdom of this 1st Amendment of the Constitution, written over 213 years ago, is not understood or accepted by so many today. Those that reject the 1st Amendment reject respect for others.

What the 1st Amendment really says is that we must, by law, be respectful of each other’s religions, not attempt to force religious beliefs or practices onto to others (such a captive audience in a public school, court, or public agency), and we must be tolerant of others’ religions. Thus, others’ religions should matter not to anyone else. That’s why it’s impossible for government to be anything but secular, because it can’t represent all religions, it can not be preferential or exclusionary to any religion(s). If it does, it will lead to totalitarianism by a minority, which will lead to oppression, which will lead to worse.

As for Dennis Baxley’s bill, it’s much like Dennis Baxely. It’s full of horse sh!t. We don’t need new laws that closely resemble numerous existing laws to protect our freedom of speech, religion, etc. There’s nothing wrong with a professor that has an opinion. If a professor abuses his position and wastes students time with too much of his opinion, then students can and should complain to their university about their time being wasted on subjects unrelated to their coursework. But, there’s no need to bring religion, politics, or litigation into it. Not everything justifies a new law, law suit, or a new bill.

Besides, Baxley is spreading a lot of malicious lies and stories of things that never happened, in order to support his stupid bill. Baxley is a trouble maker who just likes to stir it up and make it stink, create stupid and unnecessary bills, and try to make everyone believe he’s doing hard and complex work, when he in fact, is seducing people into petty politics and unnecessary debate about religion and other topics that have no place in government.

J. Anthony,
Do you really thing winning a debate means you had the stronger position? It is unfortunate that their is such a difference between the parties on environmental issues where you so proudly carried the torch for this administration. If there was one issue where everyone should agree it’s preserving out environment. Yes that would take some regulation enforcement and no that would not wreck the economy (it didn’t in the 90’s). I live in North Carolina and I’ve seen first hand when tens of thousands of fish wash up dead on the shores of rivers with the cause being tracable to the loosening of regulations on hog farms. it’s not pretty.
I hope your right. I hope the environmental concerns are natural phenomena, or a product of liberal imagination, or something god will step in to clean up; or whatever the reason you used for us to keep our heads buried in the sand and keep corporate profits up. because this train will be awfully hard to turn around.

You know, my first reaction was to want to agree with Tom, but instead I’m going to take another tack.

Jack, I know you already have a lot on your plate just responding to all the points people have raised in response to this article, but when you have time do you think you could take the time to write another one laying down the rational basis for the Bush environmental policies? This is one of the things you claim Democrats don’t have a sound understanding of, and have been fighting straw-men on, so it would be interesting to compare your explanation to our preconceptions. It might also spark some interesting future debate.

Jarin

Will do. I have been an environmentalist since i was a little kid. (I planted my first trees when I was six) I believe that the Bush environmental policy and it’s market based approaches are the best for us. I touched on this issue a little in “Market Solutions to Environmental Challenges” but i will do a more specific one.

I think I remember that post. You are essentially arguing a return to pure capitalist ideology, are you not? I will be interested to see how you address the modern issue of the super-corporation and its influences upon the free market, as well as the historic realities of corporations who have not acted with environmental consciousness in the free market. Thank you for taking the time to make this effort.

Jack,

I would like to get to know how the terrorist think, but I don?t have the time or skills.

Bull-shit. I know you have the capabilities to do many things, this being one of those things. It is more a matter of how important you consider understanding the terrorists. My guess is you consider it pretty low priority, and that’s a shame.

I read a subtext in your post (maybe I am wrong) that we should understand the terrorists in that we should understand the justification for their opinions.

Uh, yeah you’re wrong. I never said 9/11 or other terrorists activities were justified I said they had a reason. Don’t you think it would be a good idea to know this reason? Don’t you think knowing this reason could prevent us from creating more terrorists?

They are targeting progress because they know that they can benefit most from chaos, death and destruction.

Your refusal to acknowledge the enemy rears its ugly head once more. If indeed they are benefiting from the chaos, why are they blowing themselves up? If they are dead what the hell can they stand to gain on earth? Perhaps you feel that it is their belief in heaven and martyrdom. If that is the case, why is suddenly a Blessed Sacrament to kill Americans? They must have some reason for believing they are going to heaven for killing us right? Wouldn’t knowing this reason help us a lot? So why is it that you are more interested in understanding liberals than terrorists? In my view, the terrorists are substantially more dangerous than liberals, but hey, that’s just me.

But they are not the enemy and it is insulting to lump them in with people who happily kill and maim fellow Muslims in order to make a political point.

There is no political point, Jack. The killing itself IS the point. If you knew how Sunnis and Shi’ites felt about each other you would know that they don’t consider each other “fellow Muslims.” In fact, many Shi’ites and Sunnis have voiced the opinion that they are two separate religions. If you need help understanding that, think about Catholicism in America during the colonial period. They were Christians but at the same time treated as dangerous outlandish wierdos.

I will reiterate myself here: Jack, your advice was sage and I liked it very much, now please, follow it and stop being a hypocrite!

I don’t know enough about Rep Baxley’s bill to either support it or not support it

Okay, I need to be clearer about what I know about this bill, which I’ve heard is pretty much DOA in Florida. I’m not saying it’s an example of U.S. totalitarianism but am suggesting that if we begin to make laws about what professors can and can’t say in the classroom, then we’re potentially headed down that path.

First, here’s what was reported in the Tampa Tribune on April 6, 2005, “House Bill 837 and its companion in the Senate, SB 2126, would develop a statewide ‘bill of rights’ for faculty to follow in the interest of delivering a ‘fair and balanced’ curriculum, according to sponsor Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala. Baxley drafted David Horowitz, founder of the conservative think tank Students for Academic Freedom and author of the ‘Academic Bill of Rights,’ to convince the House Education Council that the bill is needed.”

It goes on to report, “Nearly a dozen other state legislatures, including those in California, Pennsylvania and Georgia, are considering versions of the academic freedom legislation.”

And here’s what was reported on the website of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, “If enacted, the legislation would pave the way for student lawsuits against professors. While promoting the bill, Baxley used the teaching of evolution as an example of a case in which he believed such a lawsuit might be justified.”

And here’s what Daniel Ruth of the Tampa Tribune wrote on March 30: “Baxley, R-Animal Farm, is the midwife of Rosemary’s Baby-esque legislation being passed off with the dubious title of ‘The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights,’ which would turn Florida’s universities into re-education camps, only with better football teams.”

Ruth went on to note, “The problem with Baxley’s proposal — aside from the fact that it is unconstitutional, violates free-speech rights and effectively gelds the time-honored principle of academic freedom — is that it would impose a politically mandated legislative standard on university curriculum.”

I wasn’t aware, as d.a.n. reports above, that some of the examples cited by Baxley may have been fabrications. But I agree with d.a.n.’s assessment: “If a professor abuses his position and wastes students time with too much of his opinion, then students can and should complain to their university about their time being wasted on subjects unrelated to their coursework. But, there’s no need to bring religion, politics, or litigation into it. Not everything justifies a new law, law suit, or a new bill.”

If we begin legislating what professors can and can’t say in the classroom, then we’re headed in a very frightening direction, one reminiscent of various totalitarian regimes. Liberal or conservative, we’re all Americans and, I think, should get wound up over this kind of proposal.

I also want to repeat the point that “regulations, speech codes and resort to the courts” (Jack’s words) are becoming an increasingly right-wing rather than left-wing trend. These things disturb me no matter what direction they’re coming from.

Jack said:

I will address your points, but let me also say that I don�t do well with dictionary definitions either.

Well, a person who doesn’t do well with definitions is a person who may have a lot of opinions but, little to teach. Teaching and learning are either about watching and mimicking, or transferring intellectual constructs via words with common definition between teacher and student. Everything else is sharing opinion or personal perspective regardless of whether those opinions or perspectives are shared or not.

For those who wish to learn from others, learning definitions which are common or obtaining definitions from the teacher are essential. An awful lot of communication goes on in the world, but, not so very much learning, and language is a big part of the problem. NASA has been finding this out the hard way. What is outside thermal specs to one specialist is within thermal specs for another specialist. And their lack of common understanding and respect for the author’s definition of thermal specs for O’rings, results in disaster.

I usually need an example to work off. Words acquire connotations, especially political words. Consider the decline and fall of the term progressive.

That is fair enough - to clarify definition where not doing so could lead to misunderstanding. But, to refuse to accept commonplace definitions because they don’t permit one to retain one’s own ideas intact, is literally narrow minded and motivated by either the goal to hide eccentric thinking or designed to obstruct communication and understanding as a defensive maneuver. Accomplished debaters look for these tell-tale signs of weakness in argument for opportunities to score points.

I don�t think your dictionary definition describes most American liberals. Let me count the ways:

Have you interviewed most American liberals? If not, why would you make such an outlandish statement? Could it be a defensive maneuver or is it that the definition does not permit you to retain your prejudiced view of what a liberal is?

This is what you wrote: �A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy…

No, that is not what I wrote. That is what I quoted from a linked dictionary source. So, let’s be clear that it is not my definition of what liberalism is that you are objecting to, but, a definition in a resource designed to further communication and understanding by those educated enough to consult such a source before using such words.

And you see, the rest of what you wrote is all about what you think based on your peculiar redefining of the word liberalism. Well, Jack, I am not trying to be rude, but your thinking out loud through the use or misuse of the english language, or mine for that matter, doesn’t mean a hill of beans if it lacks authority. Authority and integrity for what one says is derived from authoritative resources like dictionaries, original verified and tested research, and original works of conceptual ideas that are logically solid and rational in their construction.

Frankly, no one should care one iota what I or you think, unless we can support our thinking with the authority of common experience or the authority of those who have laid down the defining framework and tools (words and language) for understanding and communication.

Liberalism has a definition. It is a definition set down in authoritative volumes like the dictionary for the express purpose of giving people a common language with which to build and share ideas they have learned or original ones of their own.

When you set about implying you don’t like the English language because the words that are defined do not paint reality the way you wish to see it, your argument and thoughts lose credibility and authority for those educated enough to know or look up the words you use.

It is akin to a Democrat saying conservatives are all selfish bastards who don’t want to share anything with anyone but want everyone else to share what they have with them.

Such a definition has no credibility or authority and all that can be said of it is that it comes form a person not educated in the term conservativism and who makes up their own reality as they go along. That is neither a person who inspires confidence in others nor one whose thinking others should rely upon.

Yet, this is exactly what you did with the word liberalism. You cast out its communicative definition because it doesn’t communicate your personal idiosyncratic view of what liberalism is, and replaced it with a definition that paints the world as you wish to see it completely devoid of any authority or fidelity to the real world.

That’s fine if that is how you choose to distort reality. But, don’t expect anyone else with a dictionary to follow your lead or be convinced by making up your own definitions as you go along.

I understand the desire by conservatives to demonize the word liberalism and vice versa. But, idiosyncratically redefining the word does not make it happen for any intelligent and educated person. But then politics is not about changing intelligent and educated minds, is it?

American Politics is all about changing uneducated minds of lesser intelligence, isn’t it? At least that is what political advertising and your redefining the word liberalism appear to purport. Is it any wonder why American politics is the most divisive and disintegrating influence upon our society, second not even to religion.

“tomd:

Do you feel the same way about Christian Creationism in Biology Class?”

Yes I do.

Yikes! Excellent post, David. Thanks.

The funny thing about definitions, is that they originate from the way people use them, not the other way around. So there can never be a single, authoritative definition of any word, especially politically charged ones where the temptation exists to deliberately distort, and to adopt a “me too” label to be identified with a popular group.

Josh:

Well said.

“Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.”
— Leonardo da Vinci

I wonder, sometimes, if we don’t get caught up in that trap in the rush to continually cite our sources on the smallest minutia; even down to definitions.

Anthony,

I commend you for having the courage to say that you are reasonable in your political stances, and that there is room for the otherside. I myself have always tried to understand the perspective of those whose views may conflict my own. I characterize myself as a pragmatically-moderate liberal, although I suspect that some reading this might scoff at such a category. I will not elaborate on what this means to me, that would take too long. But, there is always room for dissenting opinions, even if that dissent might seem ill-thought or counter-productive to some. It is important to try to not let ideology get in the way of reason, nor should “conviction” be confused for facts and empirical evidence.

On an additional note, “Knowing your enemies” is a key summation of some of Sun Tzu’s principles in The Art of War. However, it is also important to “Know your friends.” Conservatives and liberals might differ on alot of issues, but we are more alike than you think. For one, most of us are not terrorists, not fundamentalists of any religion, not reactionaries or revolutionaries, not fascists, not communists, and not anarchists. In the great spectrum of political ideology, we are pretty much alike, and we all want pretty much the same thing - a better life for ourselves, for our loved ones, for society. We just differ in how we think we should get there.

On the subject of liberals not knowing conservatives, I think it definitely runs both ways. I am interested to know what examples you have of liberals not understanding conservatives. And on that note, what’s your take on how conservatives understand liberals?

But on behalf of liberals everywhere, it’s always endearing and refreshing to realize that your enemies underestimate you.

David

Okay with the definition of definition.

But by the definition of liberal your dictionary gave, most Americans we consider liberals don’t qualify, as I wrote.

So we evidently have a word that describes nobody in particualar. But we do have people who we might want to characterize. What then would we call Teddy Kennedy, Henry Waxman or Barbara Boxer, since none of them fit the dictionary defintion of liberal.

On the other side conservative is defined “1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.”

So President Bush, who is all about changing existing things like U.S. foreign policy, SS, environmental laws etc, does not qualify as a conservative. In the SS debate, for example, we would have to say that the conservative democrats (who want to maintain the existing system) are opposing the liberal Republicans (who want to institute something we haven’t had before.)

In politics and society, definitions change because they define people who change.

J. Anthony Matel wrote: I respect your opinions and recognize that I will not be able to convert most of you to my conservative point of view. I suspect that many of you believe that if I just had more information and understanding, I would come around to liberalism. What do I say to that? When hell freezes over, [[[____Never say never._____]]] we will continue the struggle on the surface of the ice. I will be as I have been and that is conservative. That should make you happy, as it does for me to know that there remain some incorrigible liberals. [[[____It doesn’t_____]]] I am usually right [[[____then you’re in a very small minority____]]] , but not always, so I need some constructive opposition. The same goes for everyone.

Unlike one’s religion, which should matter to no one, one’s political views do matter since they affect others governed by society’s decisions. In a democracy constrained by human and civil rights, the majority rules and makes laws (and should, unless the laws violates human and civil rights).

Therefore, your desire to seek constructive opposition is admirable. When it comes to government, we should all (respectfully) inquire, explore, and analyze problems and solutions.

You asked for constructive opposition, so here is something to consider:
(1) Focus more on solutions, and less on labels (e.g. conservative, liberal, neocon, democrat, republican, socialist, etc.).
(2) Prioritize the pressing problems facing the nation, focus on the common ground, and capitalize on it to create solutions.
(3) Reject political parties, labels, and other such devices used to divide and seduce voters into the petty bickering and partisan squabbling that distracts us (by design) from the pressing problems facing our nation; encourage voters to unite to peacefully force government to be responsible and accountable; it’s amazing how most people on this and other blogs spend most of their time vilianizing other parties, groups, religions, etc.; stop the finger-pointing and blame-game; ultimately, we’re all equally responsible (voters and government); government must be responsible and accountable, but voters must do the smart thing to wisely use their vote to peacefully force government to be responsible, because government will never reform itself, and ignoring government invites abuse and corruption; Transparency is the key to Accountability and Responsibility, but peaceful force is the key to make it happen; only the voters can do that now; we must analyze all that government does and make all operations transparent, which will lead to responsibility, and accountability; government should be doing much better with $2 trillion per year, and $8 trillion National Debt; it’s futile to expect government reform without the peaceful force required to make it happen; time is running out; if voters drop the ball, history will repeat itself; history shows us that nations and governments come and go;
(4) See these solutions: solutions
There’s some good stuff here. Too bad we don’t have more people looking for solutions, instead of wallowing in the petty bickering, labeling, and partisan politics that cleverly serve to distract us from the pressing problems facing the nation.

Jack:

Maybe rather than changing the definition of liberal and conservative, what is necessary is realizing that these labels do not apply to democrat and republican respectively, nor consistently to either group.

One of the interesting things about the book that I have been reading is that, though it identifies the dominant political ideologies of the day, it goes to great pains not to link them with any existing political parties. It also describes people as subscribing to combinations of ideologies, such as capitalism AND liberalism, rather than suggesting that people subscribe to pure versions of single ideologies. I think this approach holds truths for considering the modern political realities we are faced with.

Labels and political parties are devices to seduce people into the petty bickering and partisan squabbling, that serves to distract us (by design) from the pressing problems facing our nation, and the fact that the seducers are fleecing the people, and doing nothing to solve the pressing problems facing the nation.

We’d be better off without them, because they only serve to make society dysfunctional, and incapable of solving even the most elementary problems.

Dan:

Without them, in a truly every-man-for-himself scenario of government, government would have little cohesiveness of vision and would be trying to go in a hundred directions at once. Coalitions among men are the only real way to move a democracy, even a representative one (republic).