Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jaked122]

George bush is really quite liberal if you think about it, he's never stood up for conservatives or republicans in general and the goverment spent about 100 billion a week with him, something that usually goes against conservatism.

[Rezan]

Uhm. Are you talking about the "I love guns, war, discrimination of ethnicities, running the US economy into a ditch, and tax-breaks for the rich" President who is getting kicked out of office on ... Tuesday, or his father?

[Servant Corps]

It depends on what you mean by liberalism and conservativism. I view Liberalism as belief that using rationality will allow us to solve social problems, and Conservativism believes in keeping tradition.

However, Rezan, Bush did call for compassionate conservativism. Some people derided it as liberalism during his primary campagin.

[mainiac]

F*ck!  Dat!  Sh*t!

The conservatives seem to think that "right" is synonamous with "correct" and anytime their membership reveals themselves to be massive failures, it's because they weren't really conservative.  But no, that's just wrong.  You were a pathetic excuse for a right winger, but you never stopped being a right winger.  Unless you actually set your sights on some sort of left wing agenda, your actions aren't liberal.  George Shrubs conservative ineptitude was conservative.

Tarp loans weren't liberal, they were a desperate move to prevent a freeze of the credit markets.  While the tarp loans weren't libertarian (in sense of the pathetic excuses for human beings who pass of their social retardation as "libertarian" these days, filling the net with their massive egos despite not giving a flying f*ck about actual libertarian principles), that doesn't make it liberal.  Just because A is not B doesn't mean A must be C.  A liberal response might have been expanding the small business association's loan giving powers and forcing the big banks to split off some failed divisions for bankruptsy, thus building a foundation from the ground up.  Giving a massive hand out to the big guy so they can start buying up small banks who were well and helping their communities is not liberal in the least.

This is the complete list of when Bush the Little acted in a liberal manner:
1) increased aid to fight diesease in africa
2) on June 24, 2002, he nervously whispered "should we maybe think about treating them mexicans like they have rights and stuff?"  whereupon, Cheny slapped him.

The shrub was a conservative failure through and through.  No one should call him liberal no matter how much they boo hoo.

[Servant Corps]

The conservatives seem to think that "right" is synonamous with "correct" and anytime their membership reveals themselves to be massive failures, it's because they weren't really conservative. But no, that's just wrong.  You were a pathetic excuse for a right winger, but you never stopped being a right winger.  Unless you actually set your sights on some sort of left wing agenda, your actions aren't liberal.

Um. You're the one who cursed the opponent.

And you do realize you can be right and yet still be a Liberal, at least outside of the United States? Of course, it's called neoliberalism, but still.

And before we get in an argument over definitions!

"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberal: "A 19 th -century political idea which championed individual rights, civil liberties, and private property."
www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

And let us look at conservatism.

conservatism: a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favour tradition, where tradition refers to various religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservativism

There. Now we know what is liberalism and what is conservativism.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I could see some of the paleoconservatives argue that since the neoconservatives were former liberals, and Bush is aligned with the neoconservatives, that he himself may be a liberal.

EDIT2: And then we have the individualist conservatives, like Ronald Regan, who believes in promoting individual liberty via tax cuts and autonomy devolution. However, er, the idea of stressing individual liberty goes to the heart of Liberalism, which means I am not exactly pro-Roland Regan.

Gah. I hope this thread doesn't boil over to a flame war.

[mainiac]

Why are you bringing up 150 year old definitions?  Those definitions have absolutely no relavence towards this conversation as everyone knows we are talking about contemporary liberalism (As defined by the negative rights movement, concern for the tragedy of the commons and the notion of a just society) versus contemporary conservatism (As defined by the movement to roll back federal power, embrace a "traditional" morality and society that makes no demands upon you.)

If we were talking about whether Bush is a classic liberal or not, we would have used that phrase.  But people like jaked122 aren't trying to associate Bush with a movement from the Victorian era, they're trying to say that Bush is just like the Democrats.

[Servant Corps]

Why are you bringing up 150 year old definitions?  Those definitions have absolutely no relavence towards this conversation as everyone knows we are talking about contemporary liberalism (As defined by the negative rights movement, concern for the tragedy of the commons and the notion of a just society) versus contemporary conservatism (As defined by the movement to roll back federal power, embrace a "traditional" morality and society that makes no demands upon you.

The concept of Negative Rights is something only conservatives would defend, I thought the 'contemporary liberals' you claim to talk about are for Positive Rights. The Tragedy of the Commons are highlighted in economic textbooks so as to call for Capitalistic Ownership of property. And justice seems a bit vague of a concept...

In any case, I bring up these definitions because these definitions count, and if it wasn't for these definitions, Conservativism and Liberalism wouldn't even exist.

I do not want to see an argument, first of all, but second of all, I do not want to see an argument over something that people can't even seem to get a good definition. Both you and jaked122 see the world differently, and likely have different definitions.

For example, even in your own definition, contemporary conservativism believe in rolling back federal power. Federal power have increased under Bush. Therefore, Bush is not a conservative. That may be what jaked122 believes himself. I don't however, because I believe conservativism requires more than 'rolling back federal power'. That to me, rightly or wrongly, smack of libertarianism.

We need to focus on the basic assumptions of liberalism. Even today, 'contemporary liberalism' believes in individual liberty, while 'contemporary conservativism' believes in conserving tradition. This is heavily important, and we need to worry about if people are following these basic principles to the letter, instead of arguing that Person A is not a conservative because he votes for loaning money to some bankrupt car dealership.

And, these 'old' definitions are likely not very contested. They are not 'conterversial'. We can all agree that these definitions are what they are. Liberals are for individual liberty, Conservatives are for tradition. So it is better to use them as a starting point rather than go out and make a ideological statement that somebody is going to contest.

[mainiac]

Possitive rights, negative rights, I'm always mixing those two up.  They were named backwards if you ask me.

Attacking the form of the debate in order to make it seem that debate has no purpose, is nothing less then an attack on logic.  Please, don't attack logic!  Srsly though, despite the fact that me and jakie-boy might have different world views, that doesn't mean we should be forced to make our arguments through the arbitrarily picked lens of classical liberalism.  That's silly.  But people bring classical liberalism up in critiques on modern liberalism a whole lot of the time, so my perception swings somewhat past the sillyness and somewhat into the "is that hostility?"

And no, those "old school" definitions are not unlikely to be contested.  Liberals today support government regulation of the economy, classical liberals fought against it.  A flat tax was good to the classical liberal, try telling that to a modern one.  "The government is best which governs least" was very much in vogue with the classical liberals, but it's the idea the modern liberals spend most of their time fighting against.  Classical liberalism is an absolutely horrible description of those we call "liberal" in a modern context, in fact it is a much more apt description of the modern conservative movement.

And yes, Bush did roll back federal power.  Yes, he deprived some people of their basic human rights, but that is not the central point to his roll back of federal power.  Bush massively rewrote the way in which the Federal government could interact with the citizens of this country, binding the governments hands in every instance.  He intentionally racked up a debt because he feared a surplus would let the government be to active in shaping the economy (as he promised to do during the election.)  He dismantled long standing commitments to protect the welfare of the american people (FEMA and the environment anyone?) and fought to create barriers against federal protection of the general welfare in the future (school and social security privitization).  Finally, he turned a horrifying disgust upon the institutions of government, attacking the living organizations which make up the flesh in the government body.  He distorted the perception of the CIA, betrayed the army and decapitated the regulatory agencies.  All of these actions worked to undo the slowly gained trust and institutional experience that allowed these federal bodies to do the government's job.

From day 1, Bush waged a war against federal power in almost every form.

And no, trying to force christian values on the nation through his social policies is not a counter example to this roll back of federal power.  Federal power is what I described, the actual ability of the government to act as a governing body.  Enforcing your own morality upon someone is not governing.
Intervening in the recent crises is a poor example as well.  No government in the world would sit back and let it's banking sector fail.  That is suicide.

[Servant Corps]

Take a look back at the definition. Liberals champion individual rights.

Now, classical liberals and 'contemporary liberalism' only disagree on what it is meant by individual rights. Does a flat tax promote individual rights? The Classical Liberal would say yes, the contemporary liberal would say No.

However, both liberals champion individual rights. That makes them Liberal. If neither people talk about individual rights at all, they wouldn't be liberals. These two Liberal groups disagree on what are "individual rights" does not matter, but they still believe the concept is something worth protecting.

So it is still useful to keep this definition and not throw it away! The glorification and protection of individual rights is what defines liberalism. You can't basically toss away your roots right that.

And I don't like your rant. The powers of the government have increased due in order to promote National Security, more money is being devoted to the military, the government have higher economic control thanks to the stimulus, Bush introduced the Medicare Part D plan, meaning higher government involvement, campagined for immigration reform that would mean more bureacracy, etc.

I argue that the government has increased its power under Bush. But until we can get some numbers that can actually meausre 'power', I don't think we'll ever know. But meh. To me, I don't think that really matters, because I don't think "government power" is a good determinat of what is liberalism/conservativism.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm unilaterally backing out. Let see jaked122 speak.

[mainiac]

Once again, with the nihilistic attack.  They're views might be diametrically opposed but that doesn't mean anything.  noooooo

[EuchreJack]

Congrats, jaked122, you managed to start an argument between two of the strongest members of this community with just one run-one sentence.

Now, everyone step back, breath, and ask yourself: Why do I let one sentence found on the internet bother me so much?  Anyone who looks at the stuff that George W. Bush did knows he's bordering on the Arch-Conservative, by the standards of the LCS.

EDIT: The member who started this argument became one on December 20, 2008, 06:45:51 PM, and has posted 43 times.  Not a long-time member, probably some guy who got bored over the Christmas Break and though it fun to talk with us for a bit.  So, again, WHY?

[mainiac]

Because I enjoy debate?

[EuchreJack]

 

You and Servant Corps both, I'm starting to gather...

[jaked122]

he is for the most part an arch conservative, but in the details he is a s liberal as bill clinton, but of course, conservatism and liberalism is not Tradition Vs Rationality, it's is instead the rationality of the majority vs the rationality of the minority, the benefit of the mass vs the benefit of the few who may not even deserve it.
 and of course liberals (newspapers/CNN/NPR/MSNBC/ECT.) love to say that whenever a black man is murdered that it is a hate crime if the main suspect is white or republican(Conservative).
EDIT: thsi thread WILL boil into a flame war, god willing, and George Bush never made any changes to discriminate against minorities (minus Muslims, especially the ones from countries with the Taliban and "forth" riecht of Saddam Hussein)

Congrats, jaked122, you managed to start an argument between two of the strongest members of this community with just one run-one sentence.

Now, everyone step back, breath, and ask yourself: Why do I let one sentence found on the internet bother me so much?  Anyone who looks at the stuff that George W. Bush did knows he's bordering on the Arch-Conservative, by the standards of the LCS.

EDIT: The member who started this argument became one on December 20, 2008, 06:45:51 PM, and has posted 43 times.  Not a long-time member, probably some guy who got bored over the Christmas Break and though it fun to talk with us for a bit.  So, again, WHY?

thanks for the honourable? mention?
George bush never stomped on individual rights, look at liberals who say they campaign solely for that and they want to take away the Second amendment just because of Crazy people using guns to murder hundreds, and this will never be stopped by any law no matter what as it is insane mentality that would drive them to stop at nothing to kill people.

[Aqizzar]

he is for the most part an arch conservative, but in the details he is a s liberal as bill clinton, but of course, conservatism and liberalism is not Tradition Vs Rationality, it's is instead the rationality of the majority vs the rationality of the minority, the benefit of the mass vs the benefit of the few who may not even deserve it.

This from the ideology that created the largest CEO/employee wealth gap in modern economic history, keep medicine in the realm of the fabulously rich, and launched a war to help funnel tax money to defense contractors.

and of course liberals (newspapers/CNN/NPR/MSNBC/ECT.) love to say that whenever a black man is murdered that it is a hate crime if the main suspectt is white or republican(Conservative).

You've actually convinced yourself of this haven't you?  When was the last time you ever heard of a murderer being asked his political ideology?  Not to mention the conclusion stems from reactionaries like the KKK and conservative voters/candidates so often overlapping.