To where do your loyalties and agendas lie?

[9sublime]

Yeah, but in todays world he's closer to a liberatarian.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Yeah, but in todays world he's closer to a liberatarian.

and that's my point. That for galam to make a connection of today's "liberals" to the classical liberals like Locke or Jefferson is historically unfounded. They have no connection, and in fact, are practically polar opposites.

 

[JavaBlack]

...

The modern day ideologies of liberalism and conservatism are actually both products of liberalism. This represents the variation and even contradiction that occurs in the wider ideals of liberalism.
Liberalism calls for self governance, but also for protecting the "weak" from the "strong"
for democracy, but against tyranny of the majority
for equality of opportunity, but also for keeping government out of the economy
for human rights but also for defense against those hostile to the people
for good works and charity but also for individualist self interest
for an educated populous but also for free thought
for freedom of religion and seperation of church from state
for national (possibly world) unity but also for freedom to choose one's path

There are many things within the larger doctrine of liberalism that require reconciliation due to their combative nature. It is much like our government and court system... the ideology was also a product of adversarial process and balance.
Liberalism and conservatism of today reflect the point we are at now in maintaining balance over the larger liberalism.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

So you're over here now too, Java? Welcome aboard! Even the mods are abandoning 'political forum' now...

 

[JavaBlack]

...

I'm not abandoning it. I'm just diversifying.
PF has its days or times where the server doesn't work or where no one's posting. So I flip back and forth and sometimes to Political Crossfire as well.

 

[qalam]

Oh Jeez! I apologize for interjected history into the conversation, I did not know it would get panties a twist. Sorry!

So "liberals" are for big government and "Conservatives" are not, is that the simple of it?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Oh Jeez! I apologize for interjected history into the conversation, I did not know it would get panties a twist. Sorry!

What are you talking about? Who's "panties got in a twist"?

So "liberals" are for big government and "Conservatives" are not, is that the simple of it?

By definition, yes.

 

[qalam]

Jeez not again! If by definition my statement is correct, when was the last time that was the case? When was the last time a conserv gave you a smaller government?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Jeez not again! If by definition my statement is correct, when was the last time that was the case? When was the last time a conserv gave you a smaller government?

A conservative president? The last was probably Reagan. But there have been plenty of conservative senators/congressman/governors/mayors who have been effective, small gov't leaders.

It's really a philosophical disagreement, and as much as I don't like Ron Paul the man, no one articulates this better than he. If you believe that it's governments job to take care of you from cradle to grave and to run your life, then you philosophically are aligned with the liberals. That's their platform.

 

[Justinian]

I think Java is referring to Neoconservatism which is really not conservatism but a perversion of conservatism much more like the old school democratic platform. Conservatism, "Paleoconservatism" has its modern roots in Edmund Burke, Russel Kirk, TS Eliot, etc. However the broad nature of conservatism is ancestrally inherent, reflecting on people, political decisions and believes since all the way back. This of course leaves out imperialism which is in a category of itself.