posted
This is lifted from the SCOTUS thread, which I can't quite get a handle on. Suffice it to say I disagree with the decision, (strongly) but as has been voiced by several people: The liberal vs. Conservative thing doesn't seem to make sense. So just to deal with that issue, here goes:
From Dagonee:
"Oh, and Flying Cow, as you say, it isn't out of line of "stated" ideologies. It is out of line with distortions heaped on those stated ideologies by their opponents."
I have a problem with definitions of "Liberal" vs. "Conservative." Commonly conservatives brand liberals as "big government" and lay claim to "small government" as part of their ideology.
My own feeling is that whichever party is in power tries to expand the government branches that support their agenda, and reduce or eliminate branches that they oppose. This is certainly the case with Bush, it was also with Reagan. I don't think it's anything new. It has nothing to do with enlarging or reducing government as an ideological agenda.
My own view is that conservatives attempt to "conserve" the status quo, whatever that is currently. Conservatives opposed the end of slavery, because they were frightened of going through the changes that would be necessitated by a fundamental change in the way the economy was structured. Likewise, conservatives oppose "soft energy paths" that would undermine the existing petrochemical economy, and require that we all get used to a different way of life. It strikes me as ironic that "conservatives" often run into conflict with "conservationists," both of whom are trying to conserve what we have.
The accepted definition of "liberal" has been imposed by conservatives to mean "using a liberal dose of tax dollars and government intervention in order to acheive their goals." (or something close to that). Historically this comes from FDR's solution to the depression, which was to spend our way back to a strong economy, but I don't think it can be generally applied. Liberals seem to be the ones who want to pay down the debt while the economy is strong.
To me liberalism has nothing to do with spending, and everything to do with a liberal outlook. That is, being open-minded enough to make necessary changes, even if that means that we go through pain in making adustments. Those might be economic adjustments, where CEO's learn to live with fewer than three vacation homes, and the average worker learns to find a new type of job, because the industry they are accustomed to working for no longer makes sense in a modern context. Unions were liberal when they changed the power structure between business leaders and labor, but they are conservative when they cling to an outdated job market.
It also means being open-minded enough to change your mind. Liberals during the 20's and 30's for example were quite racist by today's standards, but by being open to new possibilities, (essentially, by listening to the wants and desires of black people) they changed their own perceptions, and in turn society as a whole has absorbed the perspectives gained by that open mindedness.
Both Bill Clinton and John Kerry were known as "waffles," or "flip floppers." They were accused of doing whatever was politically expedient, given current public opinion. Well, that's as it should be, given that they are both liberals. That is to say, they both were willing to listen to public opinion, and change their minds and policies as the result of new information. That's good politics, by definition.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, you have inspired me to quote Chesterton again... (everyone duck):
quote:"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
"It is the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular."
"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative."
"The reformer is always right about what is wrong. He is generally wrong about what is right."
posted
I feel as if I'm in a conundrum here. I grew up with a father who's family was strongly conservative, but my dad seems to hate Republicans for some reason. My mother's side of the family, while much more liberal, is all over the spectrum. I have an aunt who is essentially a commie, my mother, who I grew up believing to be more of a Democrat, actually seems to have changed recently. Basically, I don't like talking about politics too much because I grew up with misinformed understandings of liberal and conservative, Republican and Democratic, left and right, etc.
So, where did that put me? Right in the middle. I used to never like taking sides, save for certain issues; but even there, I was conflicted.
Por ejemplo, I am strictly against abortion, but at the same time, I don't approve of the death penalty much. I don't like the government taking as much money out of my paycheck as it is, but at the same time there are many good reasons for the government to do so. I don't give panhandlers any money, but I feel that something needs to be done to get them off of the streets.
Nowadays, after basically starting from scratch and reading a lot of material to understand the world today, I find myself being mainly a conservative guy. I still don't agree with everything that some conservatives say and do, but hey, that just means I'm not completely close-minded.
So, with such a poorly informed childhood, it's difficult for me to ever talk about politics. I could go either way on so many topics that I appear to be weak because I won't take a stand for either side. It even transfers to dorm life and my roommates. Out of the 4 people in our room, my roommate is extremely liberal, and I despise his views because he's so damn biased. Another roommate, the one I get along with best, is conservative (but not extreme), and my other roommate is a bleeding heart liberal. To side with my conservative friend betrays the other 2, who, for some reason, simply ASSUMED that I was as liberal as they were (and believe me, I'm nowhere close to those 2). But siding with the liberal guys is a lie and a betrayal to my friend, who I agree with about many things in politics.
Unfortunately, I fear that I'm not the only one who is in such a dilemma. I can't necessarily blame my parents for what happened, but I was misinformed. Basically I just want to make it clear to everyone that if you meet someone who was as uninformed as I once was, do your best to help them out. It makes things easier on that person and it's for the good of everyone to inform those who aren't.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest problem presented by the liberal and conservative parties in America is not their difference, but rather, their similarities. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you referring to the idea that, instead of the political spectrum being a line, that it is rather a circle? That the further right or left you go, you begin to loop in a circle? And even to a further extent, that the spectrum is not only a single line but rather a Cartesian plane, where: left=liberal right=consrvative down=libertarian up=authoritarian If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I think that's pretty interesting stuff.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, folks, quit complaining about the fact that Glenn actually belongs to one of the groups he's describing. I mean, sheesh, wouldn't you sound a little biased in the other direction if you wrote a similar kind of post?
I thought his post was a remarkably clear explanation of why he thinks the common perception of the left/right dichotomy is flawed, and why he values the one he belongs to. Nothing wrong with that.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't find it that balanced. It was just too transparently biased to be what he said it was. My first reaction was "agenda."
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny thing about that...I didn;t see a lot of what he is being accused of in that post at all.
Maintaining the status quo isn't a "bad" thing, not all the time. Liberal is right, and a lot of mistakes and pains ARE caused by the changes they advocate at times.
Sometimes the benifits outweigh the pain.
Sometimes not.
What I got out of his post was that people label each of those groups based on their own leanings without trying to understand where they are coming from, and that results in skewed perceptions of what their agendas are and what their goals are as well.
It is far easier to demonify your opponant, conservitive or liberal, than to ever admit that he makes some good points...take Ann Coultre for example...or Michael Moore for another. Both are very good at pointing out the flaws in the others arguments, but neither is objective or rational about the other side at all.
Which is why neither of them get any respect for me at all, although I occasionally listen to both of them.
To be honest, I think they are BOTH idiots, and I would be ashamed to be related to either of them for many, many reasons.
posted
Conservatives want school choice, restrictions on abortion, Constitutional law, lower taxes, deregulation, and freer trade. It isn't even close to reasonable to define this group as wanting to preserve the status quo.
Liberals want more regulation, higher taxes, speech codes, and smoking bans. It isn't quite as unreasonable to define this group as wanting more freedom, but it's still pretty unreasonable.
I don't have a really good definition for either group, but let's not get caught up in what the words look like. If we do, we'll have to conclude that conservatives are a variant on conservationists, and liberals are a variant on Liberace. Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you'll find about equal support in strongholds of both ideologies for speech codes -- generally corresponding to whichever side is in power at the location.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what everyone was harping on Glenn about is his blatant misunderstanding of what "conservatives" actually believe and why they believe it. In short, he makes the same error he is complaining about when he says:
quote:The accepted definition of "liberal" has been imposed by conservatives to mean "using a liberal dose of tax dollars and government intervention in order to acheive their goals." (or something close to that).
because he merely spouts the accepted (and convenient, for his arguments) definition of "conservative." And, with no ill will towards Glenn, I will point out that we have a word for complaining about something which you yourself are doing. I say "with no ill-will towards Glenn" because we are all guilty of a little hypocrisy and probably more often than we could comfortably admit.
One of the more frustrating things here on hatrack threads of substance (and why I stayed off of them for a long time) has been the usually poor or non-existent attempt to understand the other person's position. People get so hung up on "winning the argument" that they often willfully misinterpret the other side's point of view. If you are only listening to the other person to see how you can twist their words into nonsense, why are you bothering?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How's this as a more charitable definition of conservatism?
Conservatism as it exists in the modern West seems to be chiefly concerned with desert. Thus they support free markets (in principle, at least) out of a belief that people deserve to keep what they earn. They support aggressive social policies because they believe rights and responsibilities go hand in hand: we deserve the right to lifestyle choice only insofar as we choose responsibly. (Here the basic notion of desert is combined with a particular, often religious, view of which lifestyles are appropriate.) They are tough on crime because they believe criminals deserve retribution. Etc.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a half bad description, destineer... as with any broad brush, it has its flaws and I would definitely say that not all conservatives support "aggressive social policies" but it would take me awhile to outlay where I disagreed and why.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard an interesting theory about values. There are two axes of values. One axis is traditional versus secular , and the other is individual versus survival. Many Middle Eastern countries, for example, believe in traditional and survival values. Some of the Western European nations (particularly the Scandinavian ones) focus on secular and individual values.
The U.S., however, tends to hold both the traditional and the individual values, which can come into conflict more than the other pairings. This is how we can believe that abortion is wrong, but be hesitant to regulate it, for example.
I don't think this whole conflict between traditional and individual (or secular or survival values for that matter) explains political ideals, but it does add another dimension.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
con·ser·va·tive Audio pronunciation of conservative ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv) adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit. 3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate. 4. 1. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism. 2. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Conservatives want school choice, restrictions on abortion, Constitutional law, lower taxes, deregulation, and freer trade. It isn't even close to reasonable to define this group as wanting to preserve the status quo.
All of the things related to trade enable those with financial power to remain in power and give them free-er reign to do with their money as they please, which is to say exercise their power. It also enables them to make more money than the poor, which is to say become more powerful than the poor. While it can be argued that a rising tide raises all boats, is it not true that those with wealth definitely got much wealthier during Republican times of power and that their share of the pie increased?
As to values, is anyone here arguing that it is not much more frequent for someone who has 'traditional values', which is to say is a social conservative, to be a Republican?
quote: Liberals want more regulation, higher taxes, speech codes, and smoking bans. It isn't quite as unreasonable to define this group as wanting more freedom, but it's still pretty unreasonable.
I would say it's unclear on regulation (who knows), definitely wrong on speech codes (would say many more conservatives either favor them outright or support polices which would in the long term make it easier for them to be in place, ie community standards), and smoking bans are pretty much a bipartisan issue. I will grant you that liberals often want higher taxes more than conservatives in order to redistribute financial power or provide a check to financial power.
posted
Constitutional law: law based on and consistent with the Constitution. That would include free speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection, and would not include Roe v. Wade, McCain-Feingold, or reverse discrimination. And it would definitely not include SCOTUS's recent decision that governments can force you to sell your property to rich people who want it.
I found the earlier claim that opposition to abortion and school choice are ways to make the rich richer, to be quite interesting. The only explanation I can think of is: if we assume conservatives are about enriching the rich, then it follows that all their positions are about enriching the rich, regardless of what those positions may be.
Conservatives absolutely despise speech codes (by which I mean, rules on campuses to prevent political speech, not the MPAA ratings system). They also don't like public smoking bans, at all. Some liberals oppose these, I'm sure, but there has to be conservative support to make it bipartisan.
The dictionary definitions of conservative, above, are legitimate meanings used outside politics. But if these are the only definitions for "conservative," clearly Republicans are not defined by conservativism...
"Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change": that describes Democrats, but not Republicans, on Social Security reform.
"Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit": that describes Dick Gephardt, but not Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate": maybe -- but I doubt we can get Democrats to agree.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have been more clear. I was referring to "lower taxes, deregulation, and freer trade". Do you dispute that the rich got more richererer than either the poor or the middle class did when fiscal policies using those ideals were used?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:Liberals want more regulation, higher taxes, speech codes, and smoking bans.
Speaking as a liberal, those are definitely the top four points on my agenda.
I didn't say it was the top four points on your agenda. I said it was four things that liberals want. If I'm wrong, and the things liberals do want are all about freedom, then liberalism may really be based on freedom. But since these are things liberals push for, and they are things opposed to freedom, liberalism must be based on something else. It probably isn't a rejection of freedom, since few liberals want ice cream (say) outlawed, but it's something that's neither freedom nor unfreedom.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should have been more clear. I was referring to "lower taxes, deregulation, and freer trade". Do you dispute that the rich got more richererer than either the poor or the middle class did when fiscal policies using those ideals were used?
Interesting question. I don't care if the rich get richer or not. They've already got enough. What I care about is whether the poor get richer, and, to a lesser degree, whether the middle class gets richer.
Lower taxes, deregulation, and _especially_ free trade make everyone richer. There's a proposal now to include Central America plus the Dominican Republic in a free-trade agreement with the US (and, I assume, Canada and Mexico). These are poor countries that could benefit tremendously from trade with us. Opposing it will keep them poor. If it passes, it's possible that some of us rich Americans will also get richer. That won't upset me.
Deregulation makes things cheaper. That means the poor can afford more. This is a good thing!
I can say a little more on the taxation issue. In dollars, a rich man saves more than a poor man even after progressive taxation, because he's got more to tax. But in terms of need, the poor man benefits more from a tax cut, because he needs the money more. $20,000 to a rich man is another car he doesn't need; $2000 to a poor one may mean the difference in bankruptcy or staying afloat. So it's correct to say that the rich man benefits more AND that the poor man benefits more, depending on what we measure. I think what's important is to measure human need. Lower taxes is a luxury to the rich, but it can be a necessity to the poor.
Anyway, the topic was conservatives' motivation, right? (And liberals'.) Conservatives oppose the drug trade and the sex trade, both of which are ways that the rich rake in the cash. They also oppose the abortion industry. So it's obvious that something other than enriching the rich must be conservatives' motivation.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of blanket statements there. "Deregulation makes things cheaper" ... "Free trade makes everyone richer" ... I seem to recall that back in the day, American workers were kept poor and dependent by monopolistic companies and trusts who could set their prices wherever they wanted, and pay their workers and their children barely enough pennies to survive ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want as much regulation as it takes for society to take responsibility for the widow and the orphan (that's a symbol, btw). It'd be nice if we churches did it better -- and we should be an example -- but my philosophy is that that is what society is for (secular or religious).
I want taxes to be as high as they need to be for the elderly to be cared for (oh yeah, and the widow and the orphan, too). I'd rather keep my whole paycheck, too. Or at least more of it. But I realize that I'm paying a premium for where I live and how I live.
I actually think people should be able to say what they want, but that the government needs to take care in what it endorses.
I'm delighted when people aren't allowed to endanger my health or aggravate my asthma in a PUBLIC ENCLOSED PLACE. (Although I am also enamored of the enormous plexiglass cubes that enclosed the smokers and their toxins in one Korean airport.) But I do think that separate smoking facilities are generally adequate, and that outside is a different matter.
So what does that make me? Seventy-five percent liberal?
Heck, forget it. I am one! I hate freedom!!! NO ONE should have access to adequate public education! NO ONE should get married! Bwhahahah . . . whoops . . . ummmm . . . wait justasecond
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, my point being that neither liberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on freedom. We all care about it -- we all have different philosophies about what it means. Obviously not everyone in a nation may have perfect freedom and still have a society. I'm tired of both sides trying to co-opt a term to the point that it becomes a meaningless catchphrase or buzzword.
Can we respect that the other side has the world's best interests at heart? No matter what my personal beliefs about, say, the Terri Schiavo case, I was able to believe that the people who were diametrically opposed to my own opinion were trying to do or encourage good.
I suppose I'm an incurable optimist, but I'm with the 14-year-old who was about to be exterminated. Despite it all, I do believe that most people are mostly good. (Or to be a little Phillip Larkin-ish, that they're not trying to be un-good.)
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting you mention opposition to the drug trade, when its actually the absurd criminal penalties attached to many drug-related activities which create all the profit on those activities.
Decriminalization is known to cut the legs out from under the drug trade as a major funding source for further crime, as well as cut down greatly on violence related to drugs.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of blanket statements there. "Deregulation makes things cheaper" ... "Free trade makes everyone richer" ... I seem to recall that back in the day, American workers were kept poor and dependent by monopolistic companies and trusts who could set their prices wherever they wanted, and pay their workers and their children barely enough pennies to survive ...
I was speaking of deregulation and free trade in that post, not of repealing antitrust legislation. I would agree, repealing antitrust law would be a terrible idea.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not really...and it isn't really a straw man either, because I was not trying to draw a true compareason between the two situations.
I was using an exaggerated example to demonstrate a logical flaw in the original atgument.
But since you don't have an answer to that point, nice smokscreen, RRR....
My point wasn't that we should make everything legal, or that there was some sort of slippery slope argument here, but that simly making something legal doesn't reduce the frequescy of the actions, nor does it halt the behavior.
I have heard a LOT of points about legalizing drugs, and while some of the points are interesting, I don't buy it, not at all.
If you want to reduce crime you don't go about it by ending the laws that make an action illegal. While statistically that would work, IRL it makes things worse.
Unless you are Danzig, in which case not much changes. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I seem to recall that back in the day, American workers were kept poor and dependent by monopolistic companies and trusts who could set their prices wherever they wanted, and pay their workers and their children barely enough pennies to survive ...
posted
Who said anything about legalizing? I said decriminalizing.
And its not like this isn't something that hasn't been tried -- take a look at the states in Europe which have decriminalized drugs and note the drastic drops in drug related crimes, particularly drug related violent crimes, the increase in state revenues due to easier taxation (we tax drugs right now, just not very successfully), and the virtual elimination of a large profit segment for the underworld, because there's nothing keeping the price high any longer.
There's a nice, solid dataset in support of what I'm talking about, which you're telling me doesn't exist or isn't relevant.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since this is based on a comment of mine, I feel I should respond. Yet, I have no real interest in chopping definitions on this. At best, conservative and liberal are terms of convenience, usable to roughly identify a grouping of political beliefs that are, at best, coincidental (as in, happening to coincide in a large group of people).
As indicators of positions, they are still fairly accurate as long as the user realizes that most "conservative" will have more than one non-conservative position and most "liberals" will have more than one non-liberal position.
As indicators of underlying philosophies which lead to those positions, they are almost utterly unusable now. The words have detached from their linguistic roots. I will say Glenn's definition of the philosophical underpinnings of "liberals" is far more accurate than his corresponding effort on the conservative side. I don't see malice so much as an inherent misunderstanding.
I should also clarify that I was speaking specifically of legal conservatism, which is far more limited in scope and far more precisely defined. In this arena, Glenn's liberal definition is even more accurate, but his conservative definition is far less accurate. In this arena, "liberal" and "conservative" may be used with far more connection to the dictionary definition than they can be in the political arena.
Of course, one can point to exceptions, generally when a justice allows his/her conservative/liberal political views to trump his/her legal philosophy. But, in general, the divide is sharper and the words are more firmly related to their linguistic roots.
quote:Constitutional law: law based on and consistent with the Constitution. That would include free speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection . . . .
Hmm. As far as I can tell, then, it is liberals who believe in Constitutional law.
EDITED to be less confrontational.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose you could make a case with respect to free speech with the flag burning amendment, but only if you choose to ignore the thousands of other instances where conservative groups have defended free speech rights of specific groups, not all conservative.
Freedom of religion? Depends entirely on how it's defined. Conservatives have been on the forefront of protecting free exercise over the last three decades.
Equal protection? Again, it depends on what you mean.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: conservatives and liberals all believe in civil rights. However, since the exercise of most rights interferes in some ways with the exercise of other rights, they disagree on which ones should be given primacy.
Anyone trying to convince you that only one side cares about constitutional rights, or even a particular explicit constiutional right, is either over-simplifying or pushing an agenda.
Edit: Based on Mega's original post above, but the overall point is still relevant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt you'll find either side is generally for UN-Constitutional law, merely that they disagree as to what constitute Constitutional law. There are exceptions on both sides, of course.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, what you failed to notice is that my post is a reply to Will B's assertion that conservatives favor constitutional law, with the apparent implication that liberals do not. (Note that the quoted material is his clarification in response to my question.) I find his assertion outrageous.
(This is why I edited my post: to try and minimize the offense given to the many fine conservatives here, who are not making absurd and exclusive claims to particular virtues.)
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
It means that conservatives want the constitution interpreted the way they want the constitution interpreted.
BTW, I know of no one who "wants higher taxes." That's a strawman if I ever heard one.
But I know some pretty conservative VIP's from my old employer who were getting amazingly adept at arguing FOR corporate welfare while calling for welfare reform. I heard some really twisted logic there. Likewise, for military spending.
You want a REAL tax break? Balance the budget and pay off the national debt.
As far as the whether the dictionary definition of the words still applies, it pretty obvious that the terms democrat and republican are meaningless in today's vocabulary, since the two parties have done a virtual about face since the Civil War.
Today we equate Republican with conservative, and Democrat with liberal, but during the civil war the republicans were "radicals," (liberal) and Democrats were for "states rights," which seems to be a republican theme nowadays.
If you equate republican with conservative, and Democrat with liberal, then suddenly you've lost the meaning of two perfectly good words.
Actually, I stick with my definition of conservative, but I have to clarify or replace "status quo."
Status quo doesn't change in someone's mind the instant a legal decision is made. In fact, I think it remains as long as a person's memory. So where Roe v Wade may represent the status quo legally, for many people "the way it was is the way it should be" is based on the fact that prior to 1973, status quo was that abortion was illegal.
To those who are pro-life and were born after 1973, status quo is clearly the wrong term. But I think the term conservative still applies since the motivation is to return to the previous state. Likewise for religious freedom, lower taxes and less regulation. All of those are responses to a perceived change compared to the past, and conservatives want an approximate return to the previous state. It's a matter of conserving what we had, as opposed to what we have.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, what you failed to notice is that my post is a reply to Will B's assertion that conservatives favor constitutional law, with the apparent implication that liberals do not. (Note that the quoted material is his clarification in response to my question.) I find his assertion outrageous.
I appreciate the edit, and would have posted something quite different had I not been responding to the unedited version. I would have left out the examples and moved in to the larger point about differing definitions.
Note I did not defend the suggestion that liberals do not favor constitutional law at all. In fact, I explicitly disclaimed that either side was against protection of rights.
Also, I pay more attention to your posts than Will B's, so the only context I applied was the specific quote of his, not his larger post.
posted
Glenn: Well, some debt is actually a good thing, and a powerful tool for a nation, but yes, we are rather overburdened, and were it mostly paid off (though this by nature requires an un balanced budget, albeit in the opposite of the traditional direction) we could reduce the budget significantly in the future.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
