Why Liberals are better than Conservatives
Von Cracker could write a better post than I, but he is too busy courting a crackerette I guess to get off his ass and do a post. So dear reader, you are left with me. Don’t let my hotness sway you though. Stay true to your beliefs!
The best way to disarm a wingnut is to take away the idea that you too supported/support a Clinton. After that they really are at a loss to come up with some way to attack you. The “Clinton did it too” arguement is pathetic and points to the fact that we as liberals accepted bad behavior or criminal behavior just as much as they have. In the end that is what at least sets me apart. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it. They (the wingnuts) assume, like themselves that you follow the front runner. That you get all chubby and hot between the legs when Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox tell you who to vote for. They believed that when Fred Thompson entered the race he was going to be the next Ronald Reagan. They believe that because they follow the leader that you, we will always get behind the HNIC. But, we don’t, you see We think for ourselves.
So when I see this it is further proof that all things Clinton don’t get a pass with every facet of the left. Nor should she. I don’t want her to win. Our democracy will be a joke if she does. Our country will not move forward and we will be left with a double talking female that will cater to Big Business, namely the health care industry and once again the rich will take a bigger part of the pie.
WASHINGTON — Liberal activists plan to begin airing a television ad against Hillary Rodham Clinton in Iowa this week, the first non-Republican negative ad aimed at a Democratic presidential candidate. The group, Democratic Courage, has accused Clinton of making policy decisions on the basis of polls, not convictions. It planned to introduce the ad Tuesday.Not sticking together as a collective whole is a quality both good and bad frankly. It is part of the reason Congress hasn’t accomplished as much as the rubber stamp congress did for big business and the Christianists.
Tags: 2008 Presidential, Politics
Yeah, I’ve tried that, the conversation goes like this:
Conservative: (all uppity-like) No way would I ever vote for Hillary. (which is an interesting question, because it implies they are thinking about NOT voting Republican, and might even vote Dem as long as it’s not Hillary>
Me: I don’t support Hillary.
Conservative: So you’ll vote for the Republican?
Very well put. I thought Bill Clinton’s behavior was a disgrace. I did not vote for him a second time and i supported the impeachment because I can see beyond party.
On the right you have average Republicans who will never do anything other than support the Republican – even when they are criminals like George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Take Mike Castle for example. He supported Bush and even chaired his re-election campaign because he reflexively puts the GOP elephant above the American eagle. Frankly it is sickening.
Like Clinton was the only President who got a BJ from someone not his wife.
The Clinton presidency was Camelot compared to Bush. If not for the sex scandal, we would be building statues of Bill Clinton in public squares and President Gore would attend the unveilings.
I don’t think our legislators like it too much when we delve into who is blowing whom.
Legislator to Vice Cop: “Don’t worry, we’re married!”
Vice Cop: “Yeah, I know both your wives.”
Man I can’t wait until Bush, his neocon-artist ex-Trotskyite flunkies, and their pseudo-religious armaggedonist fellow travelers are shown the door next year so we can get back to real conservatism. You are seeing it in the rise of libertarianism from all points on the political spectrum.
In the last 20 or so years we have had only straw man conservatism as defined by anti-conservatives and regrettably reinforced by bloated demagogic frauds like Limbaugh, claiming its mantle.
Paraphrasing Ron Paul, there is nothing neo or conservative about neoconservatives.
As far as so-called “social conservatives”, who are nothing but SOCIALISTS with a different agenda, they have absolutely ZERO intellectual or historical foundation for their ideology, beyond Jerry Falhell and the “Moral” Majority.
Conservatism will regain its soul as a framework for ideas that resist the historic march of tyrants to force collectivism on humanity through the leviathan state.
The GOP and the Democrats have seen shifting phases throughout their long histories, weathering some of their worst elements (the Democrats their Dixiecrats, Republicans our Bushie globalists).
Liberalism was made into a dirty word for a spell. I have always thought that was crap, the work of mental midgets unable to articulate a coherent philosophy rather than shallow trite opposition talking points.
Similarly I believe that conservatism as a generally-identified political philosophy will emerge intact from this latter-day hijacking of its public identity by religious socialists and radical fascists.
My view is : the power of one’s ideas or philosophy is directly converse to their compulsion to make sweeping generalized assaults on those not your own.
But hey, that’s just me.
Conservatism will regain its soul as a framework for ideas that resist the historic march of tyrants to force collectivism on humanity through the leviathan state.
This is purple prose. Conservatism must confront the fact that voters have rejected social Darwinism as abhorrent.
“This is purple prose. Conservatism must confront the fact that voters have rejected social Darwinism as abhorrent.”
My view is : the power of one’s ideas or philosophy is directly converse to their compulsion to make sweeping generalized assaults on those not your own.
Now we are moving into the ultraviolet.
Hey if the s*** fits, wear it. The straw man about conservatism as “social Darwinism” makes my point about anti-conservative rhetoric.
As far as voters rejecting “social Darwinism”, I doubt this means they asked for parasite socialism either.
I’ll come up with something shortly, DV. The Crackerette is out of town until next Sunday, so I won’t have to perform my usual duties! 😉
As to your assessment: Right On! But with a caveat…..
Even though I will not vote for her in the primary, I will say that HRC does not deserve most of the scorn she’s received from the right for this reason:
Her actions during and after the whole Clenis hummer issue were the epitome of christian values (which, to me, is nothing more than just plain human decency, regardless of religion or lack there of): She condemned his actions, but kept most of it private and forgave him, which in turn kept her family together. So, to those on the right who blast her on personal issues, you are the worst of all hypocrites. Take care of your own first, such as Rudy, Newt, Vitter, Craig, and that pedophile from FL! (What? You guys sat on that for how many years?)
But with that said, she’s a hawk who’s still in bed with the corporations, via the DLC, instead of the People.
And Tyler – I agree that the GOP desperately needs to shun the christian zealots that have been dragging down the party; but I really do believe that where you’re seeing the rise of libertarianism is through the Young Progressives in the Dem party, with Privacy, Fiscal Responsibility, and the Rights of the Individual as being a major part of their platforms. The GOP has been and will continue to trend Authoritarian – after considering the responses from their debates – it’s all one big game of Topper (“I’ll double Gitmo!” Mitt!). Except for poor McCain when it comes to torture (and Paul on many issues), everyone’s right about the issues, but to what degree are you correct? The more extreme and hubristic, the better!
Of course, the dems will not be able to incorporate most of the libertarian agenda, since most understand that some problems/events/resolutions can only be fixed or accomplished though federal intervention. As the saying goes: Some things are just too big to be handled by the States alone…..
Our economy will continue to be a meld of the best elements taken from socialism and laissez-faire capitalism. The libertarian utopia is a hell.
Now, if libertarians want to fight for civil liberties I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder. But too many libertarians (not you, Tyler) are “Bush libertarians” who give Bush a pass on civil liberties because they like the idea of tax cuts. Bush’s attack on civil liberties should be #1 on the libertarian agenda.
Conservatism will remain relevant as a minority if it serves as a gadfly reminding progressives to respect taxpayer money, and if it restrains excesses in the safety net that would destroy economic incentive.
Good points, both VC and anon.
VC – these things : “Privacy, Fiscal Responsibility, and the Rights of the Individual” are under a sustained assault from both parties acting for and through a rapacious, would-be-omnipotent system of government. It is not just the recent-day GOP.
The root of the problem which I don’t see progressive D’s wanting to touch is the size, scope, and reach of government. I have said it countless times to my liberal friends : be careful the big government you wish for because it just might get you.
Bush and Cheney’s unitary notions of national government differ little from those on the other side of the aisle these days. To me, their differing ends are less relevant than that they both embrace means that I fundamentally reject (again, collectivism mandated by centralized state power).
Progressives with noble ideals are no match for ruthless megalomaniacs when contending over the levers of a massively powerful government.
Conservatism is about pre-empting the megalomaniacs by diffusing state power such that their schemes have no vehicle for realization.
The flip side of this de-centralization of power is that noble ends must seek means that are far more individual-oriented, localized, and not flowing from authority-on-high.
One thing conservatism rejects is the very idea of utopias, much less any derived from human design or as the result of unchecked human nature acting through or for power.
Conservatism is about believing in humanity’s “better angels” but without the folly of pretending those devilish little realities of self-interest, absolutism, and tyranny don’t exist.
The more power accumulated and consolidated in human hands, the more probable if not likely it leads to these devilish manifestations, not the better angels.
I am a conservative who shares common goals with progressives.
We only differ in the means.
anon – libertarianism is to me a guiding principle of true conservative thought, not to be confused with anarchy-approaching radical individual separatism.
Conservatism as I ascribe to it seeks to preserve (conserve) the most workable and realistic means of ensuring human liberty, which begins with the individual and only ends through the state, whether by its action or inaction.
One thing is for sure. The evil types only win if we let ideological esoterica get in the way of joining forces towards shared goals and real immediate common objectives.
I don’t give a rip about what label or party anyone claims for themselves or assigns to me. I would rather struggle to find our common ground than constantly wage fruitless battles over our differences.
Tyler and anon are both correct. This is true conservatiovism at its core. A more fundemental approach would be to immediately return to the rule of law by both parties. If Dem’s ran on a Constitutional platform with some social programs I would support them, and if repub’s did the same I would support them. In neither case should they be trading our civil liberties as if they were commodites or bargaining chips in a debate as both Hillary and Mitt-o do.
Tyler – I can’t concern myself with how each party acted in the past. I’m all about the Now and the Future. I know that they were and still are corrupt, and for the most part, slaves to Big Business and the Military Complex.
So with that said, I still believe that today’s progressives can give libertarians more of what they want (or don’t want) out of government than today’s conservatives, for the main reason being the right’s extreme turn towards a Daddy/Pimp role.
I agree that libertarianism was the root of conservatism from 1890’s to the 1940’s, but it’s not so anymore. Conservatism’s core for the past fifty years has been all about authority and Corporate Welfare, which, I believe and correct me if I’m wrong, is the antithesis of libertarian beliefs. Words and terms change over time, and usually at a tortoise-like pace – so not many notice until it’s right in their face.
I’m a progressive with a strong anti-government intervention streak. So I know that I must make concessions with myself as it pertains to taxes, regulation, etc. But I feel comfortable saying this, because most rational people understand that life cannot be lived through absolutes.
Many young progressives (under 40) have much more in common with rational libertarians like you, Tyler, than you have with the group that mostly caters to the religious right, the “anything for capitalism*” crowd, and the downright xenophobic/racist core that is their lower to middle class base.
It’s sad that conventional wisdom hasn’t caught up, per usual.
* – Capitalism does not equal Democracy!
Tyler adores Newt VC…he isn’t rational 🙂
We’ve been through that before!
Newt tried to conflate a christian-based social agenda (practicing? Eh, not so much) while purporting libertarian values.
Oil & Water.
But I can forgive Tyler for that! 😉
Nah, ‘viti. Newt lost me a while back. A long while. I still respect his intellect and few people on the national scene speak with as much detail and depth. But I could never support him again.
I would challenge you to find any Gingrich statements from about ’97 or earlier that even so much as mention a christian-based social agenda. Gingrich was a nuts-and-bolts fiscal conservative throughout his political career and that is why I worked for him. I never heard him speak of any social agenda or religiosity in public life. He was pretty damn secular-oriented.
The social agenda was the work of Delay et al, after they purged Newt. Newt was never cozy with the religious right, until he began pandering to them after leaving office.
That and his emergent neo-con world view in the last 7-8 years totally lost me.
I love busting your balls
NO? Really??
One thing about you, DonV : you’re an equal opportunity ball buster.
No one escapes.
grrrrrrr