Third Party & Independents Archives

Interesting article, David -

Actually, I’ve taken care to shield my sons from my own political beliefs. I’ve heard my youngest say something pro-Obama in my presence a few times - apparently to get my approval - and every time he has done so, I’ve gently reprimanded him and told him that even at 13 he’s not old enough to decide who would be the better president.

As much as I’d hate for my sons to become Republicans, I will not use my position as a parent to influence them one way or another. Unfortunately, I think there are many parents (both Republican and Dem) who would not make the same ethical decision.

David, my wife and I did this on politics and religion. Like Glenn I would hate to see them become Democrats but their life experiences might dictate otherwise. Same on religion. As Catholics we chose public schools, no first confession, baptism, etc. Over the years my 18 year old has asked to go to church with us several times, and knows it is her choice when/if she is ready. Through this approach she seems more reasonable and approachable than idealist. No my knuckleheaded 14 year old son loves to yell “Bush lied peopled died” during holiday functions with our families. So perhaps he’ll evolve differently.

Regardless, our approach will remain the same. To answer their questions, point out that it is their choice and so are the reprecussions, and that we have more in common that we do different.

Something you said in a previous post recently, David, that I thought was well stated.

David:

Interesting post. I feel very fortunate to have come from a family who discussed issues without linking to political parties when I was growing up. This is extended family, aunts, uncles and cousins too.

To this day I don’t know what my parent’s political affiliations, although my Republican sister is quite sure Mom was Republican based on her ideas, I, of course got the opposite opinion. Not that Mom was a Democrat, but that her position on issues would not have fit with the Republican party. Perhaps Mom and Dad did not let us know their affiliation intentionally, I like to think so.

They also gave us a strong work ethic, which some seem to think is lacking in those who would decry “handouts”.

It sure made for some very lively, and I am happy to say, civil discussions around the table and at family gatherings. I guess that’s why it sometimes surprises me to see the vitriol posted here.

Thanks for an interesting and thought-provoking post.

Good post, David…perhaps some of the answer is in your own memories. My parents were no-nonsense Republican. No question. No deviation. They did not teach me or ask me to be Republican, but I knew they expected it. I was in my forties before I discovered that the party no longer made good sense to me. I had, by that time, gone through twenty years in the Marine Corps, helped raise eleven children and begun my second career with Wal*Mart in their Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters (a very conservative corporation).

So, you might say the Democratic party got me kind of long in tooth. My children, then were about half in half while I was conservative and when I changed to liberal. I don’t think the subject ever came up in our house. They knew how I felt on certain subjects, like capital punishment, first half knew me to be a hard-liner, and the last half knew me to be so against it I’d almost spit when discussing it. But, I never said out loud, ‘I’m a Democrat or I’m a Republican’.

Was that kind of discussion held in you other poster’s homes?

A very interesting piece here… and a couple of points on which I do not necessarily agree:

If we are free to choose, then our political choices would change rather readily with changing conditions.

Not necessarily. There are thoughtful pragmatists, and there are thoughtful idealists. The thoughtful pragmatist’s views will change and shape based upon the above mentioned readily changing conditions, true… but the thoughtful idealist will use the readily changing conditions to further rely upon their own ideals as guidance. This is not necessarily a bad thing, either (I’m NOT talking about G.W. Bush ideals here, folks), as the further we steer away from our ideals in the name of current conditions (illegal wiretapping to stop terrorists ring a bell?), the further away from the American ideal we become.

The concept of democracy can be just plain difficult, demanding that voters reject the choices of their parent’s and come to choices of their own based on their own time, circumstance, and future interest.

The two ideas in the above sentence are not mutually exclusive. It is not necessary to ‘reject’ the choices of our parents when coming to those of our own. Heck, I would argue just the opposite. Hopefully the younger generation takes into full account those views upon which they were raised and uses that gained wisdom to come to their own conclusions, whether in agreement or opposition to the views of the elder generation. The responsibilities of democracy certainly do not require the rejection of our parents’ views.

As a parent of two, I can assure all that I am certainly raising my children under my belief system. It would, in my opinion, be irresponsible not to do so. But it’s a fine line, isn’t it? It needs to be done with objectivity and without villification. We need to teach our children our political belief systems, and we need to teach our children, objectively, why we disagree with others’.

In time, my two children will come to their own conclusions… maybe similar to mine, maybe diametrically opposed… BUT… they will make their decisions based partially upon the wisdom (?) and experience bestowed upon them by those influential elders in their lives… not the least of which will be me.

I grew up on a dairy farm in the middle of Wisconsin and hated it when my dad and uncles and aunts sat around after Sunday dinner and discussed politics. I hated it not because they were democrats, but that it was boring to me. I got tired of hearing that IKE was a bastard and Roosevelt and Truman were heroes…that unions were great and big business was bad…that farmers only prospered when dems ran things. I left home at age 18 for college and career with an interruption in 1963-1965 to answer my draft call.

I don’t ever remember my dad asking who I was going to vote for after I left home. I guess he just assumed I was a democrat like him. And, my first presidential vote was for JFK. Having lived in five different states at various times my vote would sometimes be for the R and sometimes for the D. Somewhere along the way my party affiliation became even more unimportant and the political philosophy of the candidate became paramount. Living and experiencing for nearly 68 years has changed me as it will most of you should you live so long. Who knows where your political mind will be in 10, 20 or 30 years. For certain, it will be shaped by the history you live.

Having witnessed good and lousy local and state governments in various states I determined how I would vote by the effects their policies had on me and those I knew. My circle of friends included professionals, as well as white and blue collar workers, a fairly eclectic bunch. It’s never difficult to understand when your city or state or federal government is doing well by the people or when they are doing harm if one isn’t wearing cloudy glasses or smoking funny smelling stuff.

It wasn’t until the late 60’s and 70’s that I noticed that things really seemed to change on the national political stage when more and more social issues relating to religion, sex, education and morals entered into the political equation. Perhaps those issues were there all along and I just didn’t notice being too busy working hard and taking care of my family.

Today, choosing a candidate to support is, for me, much more difficult than it was 35 or 45 years ago. Back then most political campaigns turned on bread and butter issues like jobs, the economy, interest rates and, surviving the threat of communism.

Remer asks the question…”nature or nurture” and it is a question posed over many generations. None of us is born a Catholic, Baptist, Episcopalian or atheist and none of us is born a republican or democrat. God has given man a free will. What I learned from my parents was the meaning of love and caring, a strong work ethic, respect for myself and others, a very strong notion of sharing my abundance with others who had little, a desire to help others in trouble, a belief in personal responsibility for my actions, an enduring love of God (regardless how and the form in which He is worshiped), a very strong sense of patriotism, and a simple belief that most folks are good.

Somewhere along my life’s path I learned to think for myself, based upon the fundamental virtues I was taught from birth. The genesis of all that I have become began with good and loving parents.

Jim M

“What I learned from my parents was the meaning of love and caring, a strong work ethic, respect for myself and others, a very strong notion of sharing my abundance with others who had little, a desire to help others in trouble, a belief in personal responsibility for my actions, an enduring love of God (regardless how and the form in which He is worshiped), a very strong sense of patriotism, and a simple belief that most folks are good.”

There was a time when these things were the beliefs of demcrats. Not the party, but the people. This last democratic president who held to these beliefs, was JFK.

Since that time, the democratic party has devoted all their rescources to “class warfare” and the re-distribution of wealth (socialism).

Isn’t it great to be able to think for yourself. I opens up broad horizons. “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”

>Isn’t it great to be able to think for yourself. I opens up broad horizons. “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”
Posted by: Oldguy at October 14, 2008 09:04 PM

Old,

Isn’t the very essence of being a Republican conservatism? Doesn’t conservative mean ‘unchanging’? Why would you think a seeker of ‘status quo’ would be one who thinks for himself?

But, back to the subject…did you become a Republican at your parents behest or were they more liberal? And do you, if you have children, teach them the Republican way?

Well, my parents definitely raised me in their belief system (church, Christian school) but never really pushed it on me. They are both lifelong republicans, mostly because of abortion, I think. I have always known where they stood, but for the most part they have let me develop my own ideas.

I had the dubious privilege of growing up post-9/11 and Iraq War, and lived in an impoverished foreign country for a year. My experiences of the Bush years have pushed me steadily into the dem column. My parents tend to see abortion as the only “life” issue, while I have developed a sense that life means also being anti-war, anti-poverty, and anti-capital punishment. (Though abortion is certainly important to me)

Interestingly, my grandfather had a great deal to do with this development. He also was a republican up until the Iraq War and Bush, but is now a democrat. I’m not sure how he feels about this election, though I think Bush has forever soured his feelings towards republicans, and McCain’s stance on Iraq won’t help him.

I’m not sure how my father will take my shift to the left. I think he is a good deal more conservative than he let on before. He likes Sarah Palin a lot, and while I like listening to Hannity for entertainment, my dad agrees with him sometimes. We may yet have some interesting discussions.

>I like listening to Hannity for entertainment, my dad agrees with him sometimes. We may yet have some interesting discussions.
Posted by: Calvin at October 14, 2008 10:40 PM

Calvin,

I’d like to be a fly on the wall when those discussions begin to take place…good luck, but if your dad actually follows Hannity, you’ve a very rocky road ahead of you.

My father was a union autoworker, and therefore he leaned democratic.

About two years after I was discharged from the military, I registered as a republican; prior to that I was a registered democrat. It was hard, considering I was also a union worker, and a lot of pressure is put on union workers to vote democrat.

When the Democratic Party made abortion their mantra, I became a republican. My religious views would not allow me to support the Democratic Party any longer.

My children automatically voted republican. My daughter is married to a Baptist minister and naturally holds to the sanctity of life.

My son, after graduating from college, bought his own business and votes republican because the democrats are so anti-business.

So, as you see, I have been on both sides of the isle.

Calvin, it speaks of rationality to weigh the life and death issue of both parties. The GOP defends the death penalty, and is the pro-war party when it comes to votes and securing foreign commodities our nation’s economy needs. Democrats have for decades championed choice for women, keeping the government out of the private business of micro managing families and motherhood choices. Still a tough choice for a pro-life person. To weigh the options is rational, regardless of which side one chooses.

One of my concerns is the volume of voters who choose a party to do the weighing for them. That is irrational, by definition.

I would hope that ALL young children who have good manners and the benefit of good parenting would just instinctively be liberals.

You have five cookies but Susie only has one? Well, obviously the nice thing to do is give Susie two of your cookies to make it even! Who wouldn’t want their child to see things this way?

The problem we face in this country, and why conservatism is always such a hard sell, is that the world of children is not the world of adults.

In the world of adults, “cookies” don’t just come down out of the sky to be distributed according to a child’s undeveloped but instinctive sense of fairness. This is something that’s just too hard to explain to children—they have to learn it themselves.

Somebody has to work to make those cookies. If Susie grows up and still wants you to give her your cookies (and perhaps has a bunch of children she wants cookies for as well) you’re going to work your butt off while she’s going to get fat, lazy, dependent, and never learn to make cookies herself.

In the meantime, perhaps you’ll have children of your own—or, quite frankly—meet people you like a whole lot more than Susie that you’d rather share with. But lo and behold, fat old Susie still thinks she’s entitled to half of your cookies!

Large numbers of people reside in a permanent state of thinking which is more appropriate to children and believe that “Everything they need to know they learned in Kindergarten” (to quote the title of a popular book). We just have too many Susies running around these days.

Yeah, Loyal Opp, like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and Franklin who just couldn’t get it through their thick heads that what was the king’s should remain the king’s, and that included the colonialist’s servitude to the King’s endeavors.

What a bunch of spoiled rotten kids this country was founded by. Upstarts, no sense of propriety or ownership, or even the Bible teachings, Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s. Is it any wonder the lowly middle class is now going to foot the bill for their entire lifetimes to rescue a relatively small number of Wall Street types who got theirs, yours, mine, and ours, and are now coming back for more.

There is a sense of fairness and justice that can be taught. But, it is not reflected in the Republicans who have run this show since 1994, nor the Democrats who went along for the ride in the hopes of one day being able to point fingers at the Republicans. And so the game is played. Just as our spoiled rotten founding fathers intended, eh, Loyal Opposition?

Marysdude
I think he mostly agrees with Hannity ideologically. He does not approve of Hannity’s divisive, liberal-hating rhetoric and is fairly respectful of other people’s views.

David
My main concern is that the parties campaign on how much they’ll do about hot button issue X, then ignore it until the next election. In any case, the dems don’t go around calling themselves pro-life while they start wars. That takes some serious audacity.

I was glad to see the dems include a strong platform to actually reduce abortion. While being anti-abortion, I don’t think outlawing it would do much. Better, I think, to make it unnecessary. And I’m still uneasy about forcing my view on life on a poor single mother. If the ardently anti-abortion crowd is really serious, they’d better be ready to adopt some unwanted babies and care for some teenage moms.

Calvin said: “they’d better be ready to adopt some unwanted babies and care for some teenage moms.”

Republicans? Not a chance. Their oft heard retort to people in need is: “You made your bed now sleep in it. Not as bad as Libertarians, but, close. The thing is, most of the people they say that about really did not make that bed, the society, wall street, the sucking school and teachers, their neighborhood and its dimwit incompetent politicians were the bed chamber maids.

Interesting idea for a column, David.

I consider myself lucky. My father watched the Sunday morning political shows and always invited me into discussions of politics. I learned from these shows at an early age. My older sister had no interest in this, and to this day has little knowledge or interest in politics or history.

It isn’t a bent, that I would want a child to learn, but a sense of history, it’s biases, and the ability to think in a critical way. My father used Socratic means to teach me, by raising questions and taking contrarian positions to me, to force me to think. He never imposed a right or wrong answer, but would point out flaws in my positions.

He was a Goldwater Republican. I lean to the left.

David, kings and queens are as far from being conservative Republicans as you can get. If anything, they’re like overgrown welfare queens who happen to completely own the apparatus of the state. They force everybody to work for them while they sit on their backsides—a lot like the American underclass who votes for the Democrats in election after election in the hopes of getting freebies. That is not economic conservatism, which is a belief that people should control their own wealth and be responsible for taking care of themselves.

I guess I should say my father and I were estranged after a difficult relationship in my teens and early twenties.

As I’ve said before I supported Nixon, voted for Ford, then Carter, Mondale, and G.H.W.Bush. I’ve never voted for an elected president.

I will be voting for Obama, though being in Texas, my vote won’t mean a damn thing.

My father taught me racism was wrong, Vietnam was a waste, the anti-war movement was orchestrated by Communists, and personal responsibility was important. He was not religious, but respected some of the pious brothers at the Catholic university at which he worked.

He also taught me, unintentionally, his faith in institutions was not justified, that prejudice is in people’s bones, not brains, and that while he was not a party affiliate, the Republican party betrayed every value he had.

A union friend, a lifelong Democrat, railed at the betrayal of the Clintons, but continued to vote Democrat.

The most important value of America, in my opinion, and why I participate in this blog, is the freedom of speech. I certainly do not have all the answers, and look to learn more every day. The idea that by speaking our minds, Americans can arrive at a better way, is the only hope we really have. The arrival of the internet, in some ways, expands on that. Although, it is just a tool, and can be used to simply amplify stupidity and isolate, as well.

I think LO points to a reality of Politics.

Republicans don’t want to share their cookies, and Democrats, remembering that they learned about fairness from adults, continue that lesson.

He believes sharing is innate. Clearly, he hasn’t spent much time with children.

Sadly, LO doesn’t see that he never really accepted the sharing principle and believes it is just something for kids. He says grown up realize that. He’s right that there are lots of grown ups who never accepted that principle. I guess being well mannered is just being phoney about sharing, to LO.

While the truth is most politicians are about telling others how to lead their lives, and were the kids who wanted to be in charge, that basic value difference speaks volumes.

It’s those fat, ugly what-evers, who are not like me, that want my cookies, or it’s realizing not everyone has the same ability or access to get cookies, and that sharing an occasional cookie won’t kill you. Crying that you worked really hard for your cookies, doesn’t mean you aren’t being stingy, or unfair.

>Crying that you worked really hard for your cookies, doesn’t mean you aren’t being stingy, or unfair.
Posted by: googlumpugus at October 15, 2008 02:31 AM

goog,

Are you saying that ‘it takes a village’??? Well, you are right…and, like in every village, there is a town drunk, a village idiot, a do-gooder, and the ‘prosperous one’. The town drunk and the village idiot may need some help sometimes, and will get some from the do-gooder, but wouldn’t it be nice if the ‘prosperous one’ would kick in now and then…but, sometimes he doesn’t, and that is when it becomes no longer a village…it then becomes a fiefdom, because if the ‘prosperous one’ hoards all the goodies, everyone else is subservient…it really does take a village…Hillary was right.

That would be a good lesson for children…

Unless the town drunk makes some effort to become a productive member of society, I don’t think he is entitled to just as many cookies as everyone else. Enough to live, yes, but not as many as everyone else has.

Its much more likely that the properous one makes “donations” to the strongest or most charismatic leaders of the tribe so they’ll protect his wealth. Wait, that sounds familiar…

goog, dude

I am proof that it does indeed take a village. I was the oldest of four boys. My father worked two jobs to pay the bills and my mother pretty much raised us all on her own. My father was not particularly influential in my life other than teaching me how not to be a father. He worked for Caterpillar most of his working career as a tool and die maker and held democrat principles. His idea of raising children was providing the money and issuing punishment when needed. My mother was so busy taking care of four young boys that she really didn’t have time for politics. Her main source of control was threatening to tell dad when he gets home from work. The thought of all that anger generally straightened us out in short order. Dad generally worked Saturday mornings and the little time he had off was usually spent at the bar. So as you can see he nor my mom had any real influence on my politics. I grew up in a small town (800) and hung out with a good group of kids who by and large had a much more stable parenting situation than mine. My nearest brother was four years behind me so we did not have a lot in common. The result is that I spent a lot of my free time at the homes of friends where I learned more about family values than I did at my own home. I do think though if it had not been for the chaotic situation at my home I probably would not have appreciated the more comfortable situation at the homes of my friends. Please don’t take any of this the wrong way. Life was not terrible at home. It just was not as nice as others. Never the less it was by and large the village that had more impact on my adult years than my immediate family.

I myself divorced when my sons were eight and four years of age. After a few years they ended up living with me and like my parents I was just too busy raising them to think much of politics. I am retired now, but when raising them I went as far as working third shift for six years to insure that I would be able to be part of their social lives. They are both well adjusted, the youngest is a teacher and the oldest is finally getting his college education. They both formed their political leanings largely on their own. The youngest is still in the political learning process and leans dem. The oldest seems to be just naturally very politically sharp and decided at the onset that he would classify himself as independent. I have noticed a large increase in political awareness from both of them these last few years. It seems that they and their friends are very aware of regressions in the state of our nation and are genuinely concerned about what the state of their future may bring. I think it is also worth noting that they like me had good people in the village to aid me in raising them.

Good Article David, as a child Growing up I had no clue what my parents Political ideology was, they didn’t talk about politics at the table or in the house, my Dad was very Independent and incredibly talented and Intelligent, my dad was not very religious he would go to church once in awhile and he would give the shirt off his back to his family or anyone, my mom was the glue that held the family together great common sense and the hardest worker ever she made sure one way or another that i got that set of drums when i was 12 ,It was not until i was in my 20s that i knew my mom was on the left end of the spectrum and my pop was a centrist Democrat ,my first voting experience was Carter vs Ford And I found myself falling into the Saturday night live era of making fun of Jerry ford and i voted for carter for me it was a bad mistake and it kind of soured my political aspiration’s for awhile but in reflection i became more of a moderate and voted on both sides of the aisle from time to time, my Daughter is a Liberal big time and i Don’t regret it, i believe that we need a two party system and we would be better off if we had three.

Goog -

Speaking of the Republican party betraying one’s values, look up what’s been going on with Christopher Buckley, writer for the conservative National Review and son of conservative lion William F. Buckley.

He wrote that he is going to vote for Obama - I won’t list all the reasons he wrote here - and, after he received so much hate mail decrying his decision, he offered to resign from the National Review - and the NR accepted his resignation.

To summarize his reasons, Christopher put it all in a nutshell by paraphrasing Reagan: “I didn’t leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.”

And for the conservatives on this blog, that is courage: to speak what you believe is truth to power…especially when that power is the one signing your paycheck. I’ve got a few sea stories about that, too….

Marysdude asks; “Isn’t the very essence of being a Republican conservatism? Doesn’t conservative mean ‘unchanging’? Why would you think a seeker of ‘status quo’ would be one who thinks for himself?

Unfortunately Marysdude you are mistaken, being a conservative doesn’t mean that one is a Republican any more than being a Democrat means that one is a liberal. As I attempted to explain in my short political life history above, if one truly does evolve politically he/she becomes more concerned with political philosophy rather than political party.

We have all seen our major political parties change over the years reflecting the consensus of many disparaging viewpoints. Today’s major political parties hardly resemble what they were 50 years ago. However, if one’s beliefs are based upon a personal value system, rather than a political party, they become free to vote for the candidate regardless of party affiliation.

Conservatism is not about remaining static, but rather is about following our founders guidelines and remaining true to what works and rejecting that which would change our founders political philosophy. Most of our supreme courts are conservative (please don’t confuse that with Republican), in that, when they change a previously held constitutional position it is described as a “land-mark” decision. These types of decisions are rare, as they should be, as we seek constancy (conservatism) in our highest courts. While being conservative, supreme court’s are usually a mix of political beliefs, but one constant is the reluctance to change that which is considered settled and constitutional.

Amendments to our constitution are also rare (conservative). Who would want our constitution to change merely for the sake of change or on the current whim of the populace? We expect our highest court to reflect judgment based upon our founding rules and historical precedence and to follow tradition reserving change to be the exception rather than the rule. That Marysdude, is my meaning of conservatism and my political philosophy.

Does liberalism demand the rejection of historical precedence merely to affect change? Is that all that liberalism represents? Is it a political philosophy based merely upon change? If so, the liberal reformers of today will never achieve success as they will have no reference point which will indicate they have achieved that success. Constant change means that in some instances they must reject that which is working just for the sake of change. Can a liberal ever find a comfortable place from which they can stand and marvel at their past success? With no goal other than change, it means the goal will never be reached. They will be doomed to an eternal search for that which doesn’t exist…perfection.

Perhaps if more folks understood what a conservative philosophy represented, they would stop confusing it with a political party.

>Perhaps if more folks understood what a conservative philosophy represented, they would stop confusing it with a political party.
Posted by: Jim M at October 15, 2008 01:26 PM

Lee,

You’ve got me there…I have no idea what a liberal or a conservative is, because you’ve just explained how wrong I’ve been all these years…thank you…thank you…thank you.

Can you believe I’ve been under the impression that when someone said he/she was ‘liberal’ I’ve associated it with being tolerant, understanding, arty, progressive, CHANGEABLE, etc. If they were speaking as a ‘social liberal’, I’ve thought they were saying they believed we were all about equal on a social interaction need basis, and that being born with the luck to succeed did not give anyone the right to hold sway over anyone else and that helping those less fortunate along the way was an acceptable thing to do. If they were referring to political liberalism, they might believe that the state should not let someone starve to death, just because the family was too poor or too base to do anything about it themselves. In either case, CHANGE is a good thing.

On the other hand, I’ve been under the false impression that the very word ‘conservative’ meant sticking to the status quo. If a social conservative, it might mean…every man for himself, full steam ahead. If a political ‘conservative’ it might mean…every man for himself, full steam ahead.

Thanks for the lesson.

Gee Jim M:

I would love to hear your definition of liberal vs democrat.

Jim M -

So why was it that conservatives were against Civil Rights back in the sixties? You know, the whole “back of the bus” thing?

Our founding documents are cherished by many as containing the very best formula for men to govern themselves. Others would trash or subvert those documents in favor of their ideas of governance.

It’s always amusing to me to find a liberal writer defend change as “new rights” just recently discovered within our republic’s founding documents as though a long lost Beethoven symphony was miraculously found in someone’s attic.

Those who refuse to live by the principles we were founded upon must cast them aside in favor of their self-proclaimed vision of wisdom, tolerance, and governance. What has served our nation well must be replaced with what is assumed will work better.

Liberals, if they had their way, would have our Constitution resemble our current 50,000+ page IRS tax code. One can think of liberals as the tax code and conservatives as the Constitution. One changes with every political whim and fancy, the other changes slowly and deliberately with respect for the past and concern about the effect upon all.

Edmund Burke, considered the founder of classical conservatism, was the leader of the anti-monarchical Whig party, hardly a right-wing position, and his statement about slavery as a weed.

Jim M, as usual, you have this completely backwards. Texas is the Constitution that is amended each time a change in parking ticket fines is made. Texas is governed by Republicans, not liberals.

The plain truth is conservatives routinely disavow the Declaration of Independence and Preamble to the Constitution with all its idealism regarding what America was intended to aspire toward. Conservatives act as if it were their born duty to insure such idealism NEVER becomes a reality.

womanmarine writes; “Gee Jim M: I would love to hear your definition of liberal vs democrat.

When I vote for a democrat candidate it is because they represent the conservative values I outlined above better than their opposition. We found a number of such instances across the nation in the 2006 election. My congressional representative for many years was a democrat who received my vote. I could no longer vote for him when the congressional districts were redrawn in Texas and he no longer was on my ballot.

womanmarine, I believe you would be the better suited to explain how liberals differ (or don’t differ) from the Democrat party. Is liberalism a political philosophy or just a description of those who disagree with conservatives? I would love to hear what a liberal philosophy is in your opinion and how it is aligned with our founding documents.

Jim M, would that be the conservative philosophy of the Aryan Nation, the KKK, the Libertarians, the many evangelical, fiscal, or moderate faction of the GOP, or neo-nazi conservative philosophy? There are many conservative philosophies. To which do you refer? William F. Buckley’s son, who knew Buckley probably better than anyone alive today, announced he is supporting Obama is the better conservative in this race. What say you, Jim M?

Jim M -

Again, why was it that conservatives were against Civil Rights back in the sixties? You know, the whole “back of the bus” thing?

Remer, in his usual pontification mode says; “Jim M, as usual, you have this completely backwards. Texas is the Constitution that is amended each time a change in parking ticket fines is made. Texas is governed by Republicans, not liberals.”

Apparently the Texas Constitution was written by Republicans according to Remer. Moot point Remer as I am a conservative, not a Republican. And, perhaps I am lying again as you are wont to believe. Why would you bother with ideas promoted by someone you publicly call a liar?

To all who are so concerned about my conservative political philosophy I suggest they read the description of my beliefs above. Match my beliefs with whatever group you deem to be in line with my philosophy. Argue with what I have stated I believe in if you can.

Remer writes; “William F. Buckley’s son, who knew Buckley probably better than anyone alive today, announced he is supporting Obama is the better conservative in this race. What say you, Jim M?

Since Remer started this blog about “Parenting Politics” should it not be he who comments? I won’t participate in his simple-minded attempt to engage in the long list of prominent folks who have changed their usual voting pattern.

Frankly, I am not a follower as Remer seems to be but rather a person fully capable of making up my own mind rather than be lead by others. My nose isn’t up the rear end of any Hollywood actor or other public person. My personal values are not dependent upon what others do or say.

Jim M, I don’t care what party you associate with. The vast majority of conservatives in this country are aligned with the GOP. That fact is irrefutable. There is an equation between the GOP and conservative agendas, regardless of which philosophical version of conservative you refer to. Libertarian, fascist, neo-nazi, and Blue Dog Democrat versions excepted to some extent, though some of them vote Republican as well.

The GOP is the largest representative group of so called conservatives.

The Texas Constitution is maintained by Republicans, Jim M. Man, your comments have a real gift for overlooking the obvious.

Jim M

One changes with every political whim and fancy, the other changes slowly and deliberately with respect for the past and concern about the effect upon all.

This can be argued both ways. One could legitimately claim that a lack of progressive change might be a big factor in the current state of our nation. This is hardly the same country it was at the time of our founding fathers. Our needs are much much more complex in size and relevance than they were a couple of hundred years ago. I can’t believe that our founding fathers did not have the foresight to realize that our constitution would require amendments from time to time in order that it might be able to grow with a changing world. You obviously feel that change is happening irresponsibly and too fast. I personally am of the opposite opinion. I think we have been lax in approaching change that will best serve the interests of this country. In the end it all comes down to personal opinion. And yours, just because it is what you consider to be conservative, is no more responsible or better than any other.

Jim M -

You really didn’t want to answer my question, huh? Of course you’ll probably just say it wasn’t worth answering…

…but that’s the response I normally get from conservatives who are asked a question that they don’t dare answer.

Don’t feel bad - you’ve got a lot of company.

Glenn, before I answer such questions it is important to determine the actual knowledge of the questioner. Glenn, please substantiate your claim. I’ll be interested in reading the results of your research…take your time, be thorough, there will be a test.

Jim M -

Trying your doggonedest to fishtail your way out of the question, huh?

What, do I gotta have a degree from Yale to show the extent of my edjimication? Bush II himself ought to be enough proof that a sheepskin sometimes isn’t worth the ink used to print it. But gee whiz, since I’m so stoopid, maybe I should let others speak for me. Let’s start with the the founder of the National Review, the man who was ‘For an entire generation the preeminent voice of American conservatism and its first great ecumenical figure’: William F. Buckley -
—-begin paste—-
“Buckley was not himself a bigot,” Tim Noah wrote in Slate the day Buckley died, “but he was at best blind and at worst indifferent to the bigotry all around him, and there can be no question that he stood in the way of racial progress.” In 2006 Noah’s Slate colleague, Daniel Gross, made the same point more heatedly:

At a time when a portion of the U.S. maintained a system of racial apartheid, Buckley and his magazine, time and time again, sided with the white supremacists. And in the decades since, I haven’t seen any evidence that he and his many acolytes are sorry, or ashamed—or that they’ve ever engaged in anything like an honest reckoning with their intellectual complicity in segregation.

These blunt judgments are similar to the one delivered from within conservative ranks by Jonah Goldberg in 2002:

Conservatives should feel some embarrassment and shame that we are outraged at instances of racism now that it is easy to be. Conservatives…were often at best MIA on the issue of civil rights in the 1960s. Liberals were on the right side of history on the issue of race. And conservatives should probably admit that more often.

All of Buckley’s writings are now available at Hillsdale College’s website (www.hillsdale.edu/buckley). Through them runs the line Goldberg gently suggests, the one separating the ways conservatives avoided the campaign to end America’s caste system, from the ways they impeded that campaign.
…
Buckley’s magazine, The National Review, denounced Brown v. Board of Education (1954), calling it “an act of judicial usurpation,” one that ran “patently counter to the intent of the Constitution” and was “shoddy and illegal in analysis, and invalid as sociology.” It opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act on similar grounds.

—-end paste—-

There’s more, but suffice it to say the guy was racist…and Buckley was the one who laid the groundwork for modern conservatism.

This is NOT to say Republicans are racist by nature - indeed, this is NOT about Republicans and Democrats, but about Conservatives and Liberals.

So I’ve fired the first shot using the most important figure in modern conservative thought, who was more INFLUENTIAL to his fellow conservatives than anyone else: William F. Buckley.

Your turn. Tell us about those powerful liberals who stood in the way of Civil Rights. Not Democrats, mind you - liberals.

Glenn,

I think your conclusion about Buckley is wrong. He was not a racist, in my opinion. He was an elitist, as I think many principled conservatives are. He could not see past his own protected, cushy life. His position on civil rights was a bit more nuanced than simply racist, as detailed in your link.

He was a rabid Republican, in my opinion, who was obsessed with his idealized conservative principles, whether evidence showed they worked or not. Though he did reject Bush’s presidency before he died.

Glenn writes; “Your turn. Tell us about those powerful liberals who stood in the way of Civil Rights. Not Democrats, mind you - liberals.”

Gee Glenn, there weren’t any dems who identified themselves a liberals back in the 60’s as best I know. Obviously you don’t consider the democrat party of the 60’s as having any liberal members so from this point on you should be careful about quoting any of those dems as being anything like the libs of today. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter were all Democrats and not identified by themselves, or others, as liberals. On Clinton, I have heard many of the libs on this site disown him as well. So, for all practical purposes, should Obama win, he will be the first liberal president and liberals have absolutely no history of presidential goverance. And, using your guidelines Glenn, liberals weren’t even present during this historic debate…just republicans and democrats.

Regardless, here’s an interesting read from Wikipedia about the senate battle on the Civil Rights Legislation of 1964. I find quite a few Democrats opposed and as many Republicans in favor.

Passage in the Senate

“Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Under Eastland’s care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the “Southern Bloc” of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regards to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill’s manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[7]

Shortly thereafter, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, “We have lost the South for a generation.”

Source; “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

I am far different from most everyone in my family, as I am very liberal and my parents and family is very conservative and republican. I have lost faith in the democratic party as well, and think we have two “business” parties, but I digress..

My mom always stressed the importance of voting for the individual, but I’ve learned that she typically feels the republican individual is better (in terms of federal positions at least).

My life experiences have been far different from my siblings as they are much older than I am (14 years plus) and my father died when I was 14. The republicans that I called the “crazy christians” challenged me in my thinking when they began attacking and “witnessing” to me because I was catholic and that was simply not “christian” enough. Then I had an amazing teacher that brought a different perspective and slowly my thinking evolved into my own beliefs, far different from those of my family.

Jim M.,

Gee Glenn, there weren’t any dems who identified themselves a liberals back in the 60’s as best I know. Obviously you don’t consider the democrat party of the 60’s as having any liberal members so from this point on you should be careful about quoting any of those dems as being anything like the libs of today. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter were all Democrats and not identified by themselves, or others, as liberals.

Just so you know, the Liberal/Conservative construct was a Buckley idea. Prior to that most Americans called themselves liberal democrats, meaning we lived in a western (liberal) democracy. The Republicans of Buckley’s era also made the point of calling America a republic, soley to elevate the name of the GOP. It’s pretty pejorative as an argument, but it’s been an effective tool of the right wing meme.