Why Conservatism is Better than Liberalism
Posted by Paul J. Amore on 04.24.2009
Think I'm going to get some comments on this one?
I think that both conservatism and liberalism are antithetical to freedom. But I think that the former is better than the latter. I don't say that conservatives are better than liberals, but I do think that one ideology is better than the other. And while I try never to engage in pragmatism, if I had to choose one, it would be conservatism.
Here's why:
Look at this picture of a yin-yang.
Now imagine it's a map of two countries, that we'll call Conservativia and Liberaland. (Assign the colors yourself; I'm not getting in to which one should be black and which one white) And imagine that the laws in each are mostly what each side wants. Not the caricatures assigned, but the general aim. So Liberaland is not a communist utopia or a hippie commune, and Conservativia is not a plutocract where rich white Christian American men (henceforth to be called RWCAMs) own everything and everyone else is under wage slavery.
In Liberaland, taxes are high and progressive, but there's universal health care, and welfare for the poor, and regulations of industry for the sake of the environment. Laws against drugs exist, but are lax, and there are no restrictions on sex or sexual orientation. Affirmative action holds sway, ensuring that minorities get a fair chance. Guns are legal, but heavily controlled to ensure that accidental shootings are kept to an absolute minimum. In short, it's a little New England, a little Sweden.
In Conservativia, there is prayer in the public schools, but it's restricted to just mentioning God, not any specific denomination. And there are vouchers for public schools anyway. You can't get an abortion. Radio and TV are controlled to be "family-friendly." The death penalty is used and used without the length appeals process we have today. In short, it's a little Alabama, a little 19th century.
So, why is the latter better than the former? Well, sharp-eyed readers might have noticed that that isn't a proper yin-yang above. I photoshopped it. Here's the original:
Those circles of the opposite colors represent a disorgainzed group of people who don't agree with the ideology of the two countries. And these are the caricatures. In Conservativia it's a group of anti-military, tree-hugging, blame-America-first, genuine bona-fide Left Wingers. It's Michael Moore and Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich. And in Liberaland it's some corporate big-wigs, and truck-driving Southerners and religious nuts. It's Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin and Mel Gibson.
And here (finally) is the qualitative difference between the two countries: In Conservativia, the left-wing group can band together and live their lives to their values, on whatever scale they can achieve. In Liberaland, the right-wing group cannot. It's illegal.
I know of no conservative policy or proposal that says that a bunch of liberals can't buy a plot of land and decline to build on it, keeping it in a pristine state of nature. I know of no conservative who says that people should not be allowed to voluntarily pay for the health care of another. I know of no right-wing restriction on running a business where the owner chooses to hire minorities because they have been disadvantaged by society.
On the other hand, there are definite liberal policies against buying a plot of land and eradicating an endangered species to build a factory. There are actual policies in place in Massachusetts that require everyone to be part of a health insurance plan, regardless of how healthy you are. I am legally prevented from opening a business and hanging a sign saying "RWCAM's only." And if the right-wingers in Liberaland chose to go off into that nation's equivalent of Montana and become survivalists, trading with each other tax free, it would be within the purview of the government to send in law enforcement to collect those taxes.
Now certainly this is not true on every issue. There are cases where conservatism is restrictive of freedom, as when it comes to sex and drugs. But even there, those are things that can be hidden. As a rule of thumb, conservatism forbids; liberalism requires. And it's far easier to hide evidence of a forbidden act than to trump up evidence of a required one. Back-alley abortions exist; back-alley avoidance of affirmative action is trickier.
It is a victory for libertarianism and for freedom whenever either conservatism or liberalism fails, but particularly so for liberalism. I gave a small cheer when the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld government was ousted. I am positively salivating at the thought of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government being discredited as was Jimmy Carter before.
good column!!!! Here's the angry head-exploding comments in 5,4,3,2,1.....GO!!!!!!
Posted By: Dent Kelly (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 11:20 PM
true conservatism and true liberalism both refer to spending not this legislating morality shite
Posted By: dook (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 12:11 AM
That is perhaps the best job I've seen contrasting the two without going into crazy stereotypes of one or both sides. Kudos sir.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 12:44 AM
You write a convincing argument, but I think your primary case against liberalism is partially flawed. While it's a fairly sound point to say conservatism forbids and liberalism requires, you also have to admit that in general definitions (I'm not talking wacko lefties who over do it on politically correct language) conservatives tend to exclude while liberals tend to include.
Conservatism sides with traditional attitudes and values. A true conservative during the American Revolution would have been a loyal-to-the-King Tory, because that was the tradition. A true conservative during the Civil War would have been for upholding the traditions of slavery, as the idea that it was wrong for a person to own another person was a progressive, liberal idea (yes, I'm saying Lincoln, a Republican, was liberal for his time). Conservatives fought against women's suffrage, civil rights for non-white people, and even fought against the idea that everyone should be able to get an education in a public school. Now their favorite thing to fight against is gay rights.
Fortunately there were liberal, progressive thinkers that devised ways to help people who either couldn't help themselves (Social Security, workplace safety laws, environmental protection laws) or, who were being intentionally held down by the conservatives of the time (abolition, civil rights, women's suffrage, affirmative action). If the conservatives of those days would have realized how wrong they were we wouldn't have needed all these "restrictive, liberal laws," and they could have saved us a lot of heartache and trouble. But, they couldn't because they were blinded by their traditions.
I'll be the first to admit that much of modern liberalism is wimpy, is overly sensitive about language, and pushes somethings way too far. But I'd rather put up with those annoying things and have a government that wants to move forward than a government who at best (by the very nature of conservatism) wants to keep things the way they are, or at worst is reactionary and wants to go back to the "good old days."
Posted By: John (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 01:29 AM
Interesting, if selective, interpretation of both 'isms', Paul.
My principal objection to conservatism is that it conserves power, wealth, and access in the hands of the very few. Those few are ostensibly identified by some merit system, thereby justifying the access that they enjoy. "The poor are poor because their lazy", so the argument goes.
In reality, often those "identified" benefit from being born to that access, not exclusively by the sweat of their brow. Additionally, conservative tend to suppress those avenues (free and affordable public education, for example) that will increase the likelihood that their progeny will have to compete for access to future resources. Conservatives never acknowledge this.
Conservatism plays to the baser instincts of human kind. It's why younger people tend to be more liberal, but some become more conservative as they grow older and see more examples of people who really do not deserve better than they have. (How those 'undeserving' people get to that point is another issue for another comment.)
I am not so very young, and not as liberal as I once was, but I lean toward liberalism still because I still believe in a basic decency in all people. I am not immediately suspicious of anything I can't identify with like most strident conservatives tend to be.
I believe in allowing everybody as much access to resources as they can bear ('to each what they can carry') and let them prove or disprove their merit by their actions, not because of traits they might or might not have that may be beyond their capacity to control (skin color, orientation, socio-economic mindset).
Despite what bat-shit conservative idealogues will insist, liberalism provides more individuals a broader range of opportunities than conservatism does. It foments greater hope for a broader range of people. That just makes sense to me on a spiritual level.
In Conservatavia,to use your metaphor, you are describing a Liberatarian brand of conservatism. Not a densely populated wing of the Right, and one often exploited and co-opted by/with single-issue politics.
Rest assured, if the liberals in Conservatavia wanted to live a life outside of what "good folks" think is "appropriate", it wouldn't be long before they would find peace hard to come by.
Posted By: The Omen (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 01:29 AM
After the abolition of slavery, there was still defacto slavery going on, as black people were arrested, imprisoned, and then "leased" as labor to large industrial operations.
Before the invent of labor unions, large companies would effectively enslave workers, requiring them to only buy from company stores, and only live in company housing.
Before environmental laws we had rivers that would catch fire due to pollutants dumped in them.
All this and more coming soon to to Conservativia.
Posted By: null2099 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 05:59 AM
The liberals would face legal restrictions on birth control and marriage. Be forced to pray to a god they may not believe in to get an education. (atheists and agnostics don't care if its non - denominational) They would definitely lead marginalized lives. Your article fails.
Posted By: Bavitz (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 06:57 AM
:::standing ovation::::
FINALLY someone at this site GETS IT. Liberals make it SEEM as if all are equal, but woe betide anyone that happens to disagree. Its Communism Light. So sayeth the loyal opposition.
Posted By: CM Wolf (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 08:32 AM
"A true conservative during the American Revolution would have been a loyal-to-the-King Tory, because that was the tradition. A true conservative during the Civil War would have been for upholding the traditions of slavery, as the idea that it was wrong for a person to own another person was a progressive, liberal idea (yes, I'm saying Lincoln, a Republican, was liberal for his time)."
You understand the word "conservative" is not simply maintaining "tradition" right?
Posted By: Guest#3557 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 10:11 AM
I agree with the general thought of what you are saying, but you are glossing over a number of points.
If I want to get an abortion in Conservativia, I am screwed.
If I want to avoid mentioning of God in school, I am screwed.
If I want to watch "Big Love" or "The L Word" in Conservativia, I am screwed.
Basically, Conservativia DOES forbid you from a number of things, but they are all PERSONAL.
So, in extending your analogy, it seems to say this: Conservativia restricts PERSONAL freedom, while Liberaland reflects SOCIETAL freedom.
From there, you have to choose which one you think is "better".
BTW - I'm fairly certain Conservativia would still have taxes, and would probably maintain enough of a standing army to make sure those Montana Survivalists paid them...
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Registered) on April 24, 2009 at 10:24 AM
I was going to comment but The Omen and John pretty much said what I was going to say. So thanks for that guys!
Posted By: DSJ (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 10:25 AM
BTW - Great article! Very thought provoking!
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Registered) on April 24, 2009 at 10:26 AM
"That is perhaps the best job I've seen contrasting the two without going into crazy stereotypes of one or both sides. Kudos sir"
Back-alley abortions, anyone?
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Gotta love the conservative mindset: here's my simple logic, but don't add in the complicated stuff because then it won't make sense. A + B = C, and that's that.
I mean seriously, you just gloss over two of the biggest issues of the day to make your point: gay marriage and abortion. I guess in your mind the liberals living in the conservative country can still do that, but they have to do it in secret and heaven help them if anyone finds out they're secretly homosexual or secretly got a back alley abortion.
The big difference: in the liberal country there's an attitude of forgive and forget. In the conservative country, prepare to suffer the consequences if you don't salute their flag. Somehow I don't think that in the liberal country they'd drag you out of your house and hang you from the nearest tree if you refuse to hire a minority. But marry a black guy in conservativeland? I wouldn't want to take that chance.
Sorry, but we already have examples of this in the real world and they don't support your theory. And sadly most of the conservative countries are in the Middle East, and I'm guessing most conservatives don't want to move there anytime soon. But hey - you'll get prayer in school! You just can't pray to YOUR god. Unless you do it in secret, of course. Just don't get caught!
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 10:45 AM
while I think a few commentators did a good job of pointing to some of the logical flaws in your argument.
Logical, well thought out discussions of ideologies are VERY welcome. Your approach to politics is very unique and refreshing.
I Look forward to reading your furture posts.
Posted By: tonyblunt (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Excellent article. One thing to consider:
With the whisperings of a law restricting conservative media in favor of forcing liberal media on the air, in the land of liberalites, you would not be allowed to write this article unless you let an opposing view write theirs first....
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Is this suppose to be American Conservatism vs American Liberalism because it certainly isn't an argument of the classical definitions of both political stances.
Posted By: Baffled (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 12:26 PM
For a second there you almost had me, then I realized this was just self-serving, right-wing, bullshit. Good try though. You stumbled over some painful truths about the left, but this article reeks of the self-righteous ethos of the right, dressed up as Libertarianism. You tell all the gay people in this country that they can band together and live there lives as they please, see what points they will have to offer about the ability to pursue liberty in a country controlled by conservatives. By the way the phrase, "... on whatever scale they can achieve," speaks volumes.
Posted By: Guest#8604 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 12:33 PM
That Sir,
Was badass. Very well thought out and I agree. Not completely, but I think that's the point...
The overall theme is the accurate.
I like Toblow-me, but you might give him a run.
Hopefully the asshole liberals don't cherry pick this too much and consider what you have just wrote...
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Another good article, but abortion was REALLY glossed over.
"As a rule of thumb, conservatism forbids; liberalism requires."
I've never seen the essence of the two sides so accurately condensed into one sentence. Conservatives love to restrict personal freedom while liberals push for a nanny state, and I reject those aspects of both.
In Shockmaster Province people would have no restrictions on personal freedoms like gay marriage and religion (or lack thereof). But they wouldn't have entitlements either. Opportunities for all, handouts for none. Estates get taxed huge and the rich pay more in accordance with The Omen's points about access, but those taxes only go to things like education, infrastructure and a police force. Social programs are entirely funded by voluntary donations because the less fortunate had the same chance to get ahead as everyone else. No government intrusion in exchange for no government dependence.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 12:56 PM
"The liberals would face legal restrictions on birth control and marriage. Be forced to pray to a god they may not believe in to get an education. (atheists and agnostics don't care if its non - denominational) They would definitely lead marginalized lives. Your article fails."
Is this an example of one of the dudes inside the circles. Sort of curious concerning the use of fail. The article is said to fail. Fail with respect to what?
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 01:55 PM
I am dumber for having read this.
Posted By: comatose (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 01:59 PM
" In Conservativia, the left-wing group can band together and live their lives to their values, on whatever scale they can achieve. In Liberaland, the right-wing group cannot. It's illegal."
Thats would NOT be true because if there were gay liberals they would not be able to be married and if a girl wanted to have an abortion she would not be able too...
You cherry picked very small selective points to back up your argument, but left out 2 of the most glaring and "moral" issues on the table.
And further more there is more than ONE form of conservatism and liberalism...you can be conservative on one issue AND liberal on another...to bunch it all together into ALL conservative or ALL liberal is wrong as well
Posted By: glen (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 02:09 PM
fail.
Posted By: Guest#6682 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 03:01 PM
I'm a mixture of liberal and libertarian, so while conflicted I liked this article a lot. But both sides have legally enforced morality. Liberals find it immoral to hire illegal immigrants for 2 dollars an hour, conservatives find it immoral to have an abortion.
Now, in Liberaland we may make it illegal for the minority to hire those workers, or put up that sign, or in Massachusetts (but hopefully not Liberaland) to not have health care. But in Convervativia, you make it illegal to save the life of a mother or hell, even improve quality of life immensely for a woman who might die if she has the baby, or one who can't even support herself monetarily.
Conservativia would also make it illegal to speak one's mind on radio or TV, while in Liberaland it would be just fine.
You can do the "plot of land" comparison if you like, but I think the conservatives would make plenty of things illegal themselves, and by doing so hamper plenty of freedoms we hold dear.
But I do really like the yin yang metaphor. Nice job
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 03:12 PM
When I read the comments saying liberalism is more inclusive, I have to wonder what world the poster lives in. It must be one provided by magic mushrooms. Liberalism, as it exists today, is the bastion of the weak, the undisciplined, the whiny, and needy. They won't discipline themselves to attain the things they want, so they blame their failure on those who are more successful, or harder-working.
Posted By: Atlas's Shrug (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 03:37 PM
I think the important thing is where these two countries would be in 200 years. Conservatism is just that: They want to conserve what the status quo is. Liberalism is about changing the status quo, whether you want it or not.
In Conservativia, the rich get slowly richer, and the poor, poorer. This is because social programs don't exist to help out those in need. In this "Pull Yourself Up By Your Bootstraps" country, you sink or swim on your own. People comfort themselves by giving at church, but no time in our nation's history has religious based charity been enough. That's why we have outside charities. The poor decide that they have had quite enough of this, and they leave.
Now in Liberaland, the middle class swells, while the upper and lower classes shrink. The poor are given programs to educate themselves, help with drug addiction, etc. and many of them slowly assend the social ladder. The rich are taxed to death, as are corporation. They finally have enough of this crap and move to Conservativia, where they can keep the friggin' money that they worked so hard for. Why should they give it to a bunch of losers? They didn't spend all that time getting an MBA and working 14 hour days just to hand over everything. They move their business and wealth.
Conservativia loves this. Now look at all the wealth! But now their is fierce competition and some of the businesses lose. Plus now there is a labor shortage because the draconian labor laws are causing people to leave for a better life in the worker protected Liberaland. Plus the poor that would be replacing them are leaving as well. This causes business failure and a new class of poor and desperate, who move to Liberaland, were they can get some damn help!
Play this out a few generations and you get one state that is more like an old style feudal kingdom. Rich people that love it, lots of poor that hate it. Liberaland becomes an under-achiever. They've spread the wealth and talent so thin that no one really has anything.
It really just matter what you prefer at this point. If you are a fierce individualist that believes that you can do anything, you'll probably take your chance in Conservativia. If you believe that people need to work together for the common good, you'll end up in Liberaland. There is no saying which is truly the best, but I'm betting the people in Liberaland are a happier bunch in total.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 03:47 PM
xjuggernaughtx, I love your break-down and of this article; make alot of sense.
Posted By: Independent4Obama (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:32 PM
There is no saying which is truly the best, but I'm betting the people in Liberaland are a happier bunch in total.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 03:47 PM
Really a great post, and a well-thought out addition to the original article, up until the last sentence. How can those 'happy poor' in Liberaland be happier than those who don't have to be ashamed of what they've earned in Conservativia? Besides, they'll probably be providing the jobs for all the people in Liberaland. If you take away the self-serving class envy propagated by the left, there's really no need to have liberals.
Posted By: Guest#3075 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:40 PM
Really a great post, and a well-thought out addition to the original article, up until the last sentence. How can those 'happy poor' in Liberaland be happier than those who don't have to be ashamed of what they've earned in Conservativia? Besides, they'll probably be providing the jobs for all the people in Liberaland. If you take away the self-serving class envy propagated by the left, there's really no need to have liberals.
Posted By: Guest#3075 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:40 PM
The reason that I think the population would be happier in total is that the majority would be middle class. They wouldn't have everything that they wanted, but they would be secure. Their working conditions would be reasonable from their perpective (probably not from the owner's perspective. I work for UPS, and the union here is a pain to deal with). It's not so much that their lives would be joyful, but in the conservative country, you have a bunch of people that think life's great because they've got tons of dough and opportunity, and then you have many, many times that that are tolling away under them. It's like looking at the feudal systems or even industrial America in the 19th century. That is Conservativia. We decided as a nation that we didn't like 80 year old ladies starving in the streets, so we created Social Security. We didn't like old people who's saving were wiped out by medical expenses, so we created Medicare. This doesn't happen in Conservativia because it doesn't really fit the profile. In that land, family is supposed to take care of these things, but the larger the society, the less family seems to mean. I don't really think that Liberaland creates happiness. It's more that I believe that a larger number of people would end up being unhappy in Conservativia. The people in Liberaland would end up more neutral, emotionally.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 05:17 PM
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. If you agree with this you are a retard.
Posted By: Guest#0104 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Good article. I might not agree with everything in said article but I do like how it's not another "Liberals are dumb; here's why" or "Conservatives are dumb; here's why" travesty. Keep up the good work.
And xjuggernaughtx, you sound pretty damn level-headed to me. You pick apart pieces of the article without having to make your points bashing the author or swearing every other word. Pretty cool.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 06:38 PM
YES!! Not to boast but I've thought this for a while. Glad to see it re-enforced by someone else. Liberalism are all about telling YOU what to do. Conservatism are all about telling YOU to do whatever YOU see fit! There are no laws against being a liberal.
Posted By: C (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 07:12 PM
If only American Conservatism was more like British Conservatism.
British Conservatives don't push religious believes on people, that whole Bible thumping mentality just doesn't exist in our politics. British Conservatives don't oppose gay marriage, nor do they want to outlaw birth control and abortions. British Conservatives believe in letting the people decide what's best for themselves as long as it isn't detrimental to others. There are also no conflicting policies on gun control here as guns are outright illegal in the UK. Sure, we still have shootings but they're much less prominent as most criminals don't take the risk of illegal acquiring firearms, as they would face a prison sentence just for being in possession of one.
Posted By: Tyler (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 07:50 PM
Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism is the only real path folks.
Posted By: Guest#4664 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 08:22 PM
"With the whisperings of a law restricting conservative media in favor of forcing liberal media on the air, in the land of liberalites, you would not be allowed to write this article unless you let an opposing view write theirs first...."
What the hell are you talking about? I'm gonna need a source for that one.
While the media DEFINITELY could use less of the radical right wing slant it most certainly has, I don't think ANYONE would support such nonsense. Like I said, cite a source and then we'll talk.
Posted By: Guest#0988 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 08:30 PM
In conservativia, women can't vote and whites and blacks can't marry. Its still legal to rape your wife, there are poll taxes to keep minorities from voting and gay sex is a felony.
In conservativia you can't unionize and can only buy from the company store. The monopoly you work for has unsafe working conditions and no breaks during its 12 hour day. And you don't dare quit, because there is no government safety net at all.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 08:58 PM
you should have come up with better country names. Conservativia and Liberaland? Lame. 411 needs to drop the politics section.
Posted By: Gentleman Jim (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 08:59 PM
And xjuggernaughtx, you sound pretty damn level-headed to me. You pick apart pieces of the article without having to make your points bashing the author or swearing every other word. Pretty cool.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 06:38 PM
Thank you, Zingy and Independent4Obama. I think real damage has been done to our nation by pretending that political parties are actually rival sports franchises. People are just waiting to get into arguments about the issues, not to resolve them, but to have fun arguing. I prefer discussion that moves things forward, so I take care to post that way. Glad to here that it's coming through because generally I don't get any response at all. People are too busy fighting with The Spook or Andrew Tobolowsky...
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 09:01 PM
Unfortunately, you left out the happy ending to the story...
conservativaia gets tired of the endless whiny complaining from liberalia and BOMBS THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF IT killing everyone inside and putting an end to liberals once and for all...
In a perfect world....
Posted By: Sco Sco (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 09:25 PM
The Spook approves of it, and that's grounds enough for me to go 'Amore, you're such a sad little drone. I bet you bathe in an elephant-shaped tub of bright red Kool-Aid every single day without fail.'
If I were a liberal living in Conservatopia I'd probably be lynched for not actually BEING a conservative.
Posted By: EPIC CAT (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 10:06 PM
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. If you agree with this you are a retard.
Posted By: Guest#0104 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 05:58 PM
So dumb that you couldn't even point out a single thing that's wrong with it?
Merely insulting something is what is truly dumb, if you don't agree, explain why.
Posted By: Guest#3961 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM
I think it's tragic that the words "liberal" and "conservative" are being thrown around as much as they are and not once have I seen what could be considered a proper definition of either. "Liberal" does not necessarily mean progressive, it is based ultimately on the rights of the individual over the state. Libertarians are "liberals" because they believe in the individual's right to property, privacy, etc. "Conservative" does not necessarily entail the principles of small government and private property, it is a term indicating preservation.
Posted By: Thomas (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 10:48 PM
While the media DEFINITELY could use less of the radical right wing slant it most certainly has, I don't think ANYONE would support such nonsense. Like I said, cite a source and then we'll talk.
Posted By: Guest#0988 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 08:30 PM
Right wing slant to the media? I hate to destroy the rational discussion of a very good article, but you're obviously delusional, misinformed, stupid, and high. Right wing slant? You cannot be serious.
Posted By: Guest#1933 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 10:48 PM
It's all a matter of personal preference, I suppose. Would you rather live in a progressive society or a traditional society? Both perspectives have massive demons. So, basically... Identify the devil you know and buy him a cup of coffee. Engage him in conversation about why the other devil hates him and, more importantly, why he hates the other devil. The solution lives in the contrast. But of course such conversation is impossible. We all walk through the door of the coffee shop knowing what we'll believe when we leave, right?
Posted By: Shane of The Road (Registered) on April 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM
**********
In Conservativia, the left-wing group can band together and live their lives to their values, on whatever scale they can achieve. In Liberaland, the right-wing group cannot. It's illegal.
**********
Bullllllllshit. Give me examples. That is, examples where you are not allowed to live your life on your own. Not "I'm being oppressed because I'm not allowed to discriminate against people and force them to live by my rules!" Because almost without fail, that is what a conservative is really saying when they start that tired line of bullshit.
Liberals are primarily all about "hey, you live your life as you see fit, I'll live mine as I see fit. I won't force you to partake in my activities and you won't fuck with the law to try and force me to live by your moral code."
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Another example why conservatism is better than liberalism: Democrats refused to allow a global warming debunker to join Al Gore in a committee hearing today. So much for free speech. Liberals are facists.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 11:54 PM
"Another example why conservatism is better than liberalism: Democrats refused to allow a global warming debunker to join Al Gore in a committee hearing today. So much for free speech. Liberals are facists."
On a similar note, those who believe that giraffes are actually aliens in really good costumes weren't allowed to speak on Capitol Hill. Damned Fascist Liberals, denying free speech!
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 01:44 AM
I think it should be fair to mention that in our short history as a nation, it has been conversatives that have tried to banned groups from gathering, not liberals. And I am talking about such groups as Unions, and the NAACP. As a liberal, I understand the phase "you have the right to say what you will" and I will do what I can to defend that right. Its the conversatives that wish to ban you from saying, thinking, or reading certain things (I know that there are some things that liberals do not like you saying, but the list isn't nearly as long and most of realize that you can't censor thought).
Posted By: Me Sir (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 01:57 AM
"When I read the comments saying liberalism is more inclusive, I have to wonder what world the poster lives in. It must be one provided by magic mushrooms. Liberalism, as it exists today, is the bastion of the weak, the undisciplined, the whiny, and needy. They won't discipline themselves to attain the things they want, so they blame their failure on those who are more successful, or harder-working."
Do you know how hard it is to believe that the CEOs of the world are hard workers? MANY of them are nepotistic, silver-spoon mouthed types who rise to the highest rank based ONLY on nepotism in these corporate monarchies, and don't do a LICK of work, making their underlings do it all while they take vacations in Fiji on their 10-million dollar yachts. (stereotype intended)
Yes, I know this isn't all CEOs or CEO type people, but I would say more than half and that's being generous. Plenty of people worked hard to get to the top but many progressives believe in an even playing field and creating one with government. And just like the Rush Limbaugh-types to the conservatives, there are plenty of crazy left-wingers who want to take that concept way too far. You need to realize they aren't the majority, just like I realize the Cheneys and Limbaughs aren't YOUR majority.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 02:23 AM
The answer sirs, is never One or The Other, but rather a healthy dose of both. This is why our county really is the greatest country on Earth. When we get too far to the right, we correct ourselves and go left. When we feel ourselves gone too far left, we correct and go right. Even if only for emotional or moral purposes (as financial purposes have lost all meaning in the days of Cable News and the abilty to fudge numbers any way you choose) this country rights its ship and moves in the direction of progress, both moral and economical, every 4 years. Sure, there is polital mudslinging, and cliche ridden half truths slug at either side. In the end, the Loyal Opposition for both sides provides the much needed balance of this Yin Yang Government and gives us the government we deserve and want. Should we change that, and go into strictly Liberaland and Conservativeland or what have you, it would only lead to a final and complete destruction.
The game is played in the media but the real one is behind closed doors. It is all about what the country can handle vs what the world is doing. If the world as a whole does something, then USA will eventually follow suit. Gay rights is (thankfully) just a few marches away. Abortion is a wonderful key word to rally crowds but a non-issue when it comes to REAL politics. War is a necessity no matter how much hippie blowhards hate it, and we will engage in it to keep our dominance because that is what the food chain is all about. So, argue if you will, it makes no difference. You are all cogs in one great and wonderful machine. And it will take care of you as much as you take care of it, oddly by playing your partisan parts.
Posted By: Lefty McRighty (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 04:54 AM
Again, the American definition of "liberal" amuses me. Both sides believe in exactly the same economic and social system. All you really disagree on is the amount of government regulation of the economy. Think of it like this - one of them drinks coffee, the other drinks tea, but both of them buy their drink in a Starbucks. You pretend that the "liberals" are on the "Left", but America doesn't have a "Left". It's just got one big Right. As soon as Obama said he believed in progressive taxation, Fox News went out and called him a "Marxist", as if progressive taxation was the same as armed revolution. At least here in Britain we have a media that allows people to believe in something other than capitalism, without pretending that they're insane etc. It amazes me how everything in American has to be provided by the private sector. Heaven forbid that you should pay taxes so everyone can see a doctor free at the point of use. Oh no, that won't do, nobody makes a profit!
Posted By: guestreferee (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 07:05 AM
YES!! Not to boast but I've thought this for a while. Glad to see it re-enforced by someone else. Liberalism are all about telling YOU what to do. Conservatism are all about telling YOU to do whatever YOU see fit! There are no laws against being a liberal.
Posted By: C (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 07:12 PM
What the heck are you talking about? Conservatives are the ones looking to rewrite the Constitution to do things like ban abortion, ban flag burning, and ban gay marriage. The conservative mindset leans more towards, "Don't tell me what I can do in private, but I'm going to tell you what you can or can't do." It's a hypocritical mindset, which is one of the reasons why it's failed so spectacularly over the past decade.
Extremist Conservatives want everybody to speak English. They want everybody to worship the same God. They want everybody to be one race. Sure you can own as many guns as you want, but you'll be told who you can marry.
Liberalism is more about "I'm not going to tell you what you can or can't do, UNLESS what you want to do hurts or endangers someone else." The weakness is when it's taken too far, like extremists who don't want anybody to own any guns or don't want any of us to eat something with a face because it might have feelings.
An open hypothetical question: in America Conservatia, can my brother practice being a Muslim out in the open? Could he fly on an airplane like anyone else if he's wearing traditional garb, along with his gay partner, who enjoys kissing his mate on the lips in public? And could they both carry guns as long as they have the proper CCW permit at their public wedding?
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 11:31 AM
British conservatism? LMAO! You have Islamists breathing down your neck now because your country lacks morals now. I hate to say it but abortion is not some kind of fringe issue. It's a human life that is being extinguished by a lazy society who can't responsibility. Gay marriage is also an issue because marriage is between a man and a woman.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 11:34 AM
hey scott b, you want examples, well here you go:
1. liberals want maditory service to ones country. i repeat, manditory service.
2. liberals want freedom of religion removed from all schools, hospitals, nursing homes and so on. they don't want people mentioning God or even having a moment of silence.
3. they want to remove God from our government. our 4 fathers built this government with God in mind, who are they to change it.
4. they want to force doctors and nurses to perform abortions, no matter what thier view on it is. instead of just making abortions legal, they want to make catholic and chrjstian hospitals have to perform abortions. there are more than enough hospitals that preform abortions, why force a small number of religous hospitals to do something they are against.
5. they want to force priests to marry gay couples. a church gets nothing from the state, so what gives liberals the right to force priests to marry gay couples.
6. they want to force christian adoption agencies to have to give children to people they dont see as fit parents (non-married couples)
i can go on and on.
Posted By: havok (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 01:12 PM
British conservatism? LMAO! You have Islamists breathing down your neck now because your country lacks morals now. I hate to say it but abortion is not some kind of fringe issue. It's a human life that is being extinguished by a lazy society who can't responsibility. Gay marriage is also an issue because marriage is between a man and a woman.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 11:34 AM
You're absolutely right about the Islamists, which is just one of the reasons why it's so essential for us to elect a conservative government next year. A vote for Labour is vote for Islam.
"I hate to say it but abortion is not some kind of fringe issue. It's a human life that is being extinguished by a lazy society who can't responsibility"
Abortion is a result of irresponsibility yes, those who have children that are in no position to be doing so are very irresponsible. We can't have people who are out of work or do not earn enough to support a family having children and then expecting the state to pay for them.
Now, what I don't understand at all is the idea of being against birth control, that's crazy. If birth control was more widely used then we wouldn't have nearly as many abortions. People are going to have sex, you can't tell people not to have sex unless they want a child, it's just not feasible. We need to aim to make a far more responsible society, socially and fiscally and then abortions will become a rarity.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, who cares? Seriously, why is this even an issue? Why do people object to gay men getting married, how does it affect their lives? If gays want to get married then let them get married, live and let live. It's no business of mine what other people do as long as it isn't hurting anybody.
Posted By: Tyler (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 02:14 PM
And here (finally) is the qualitative difference between the two countries: In Conservativia, the left-wing group can band together and live their lives to their values, on whatever scale they can achieve. In Liberaland, the right-wing group cannot. It's illegal.
====================
They're called homosexuals, and they don't agree with your above statement.
Posted By: MDK (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 02:17 PM
Hey Havok. Not only are you a moron, but a paranoid moron. Where are you getting this information? You make it sounds as though Liberals want to take all of your guns away FORCE your wife to have an abortion and then FORCE you into a gay relationship.
Oh and just so you know. We are NOT a Christian nation based on Christian ideals. Read the autobiographies of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin sometime. Both of them bought into the Enlightenment/Age of Reason ideal of Deism. So no...the government was NOT made with God in mind. You want a theocracy...move to Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 02:19 PM
This is not a well-writter article as there are conservative laws that require and plenty of conservative laws that do not allow liberals to live freely.
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 02:19 PM
havoc - no wonder you hate liberals. Everything you know about them is WRONG. I mean, wow. There isn't one thing you said in that post that's correct. Sure there's a grain of truth in each statement (like that liberals believe in a right to choose) but then you go off the deep end with a crazy conservative talking point (they're going to put guns to the heads of doctors and FORCE them to perform abortions on babies as they're being born - and maybe even after!!!). Safe to say every point you made is absolutely, positively WRONG. Really, take some time and educate yourself on the issues before you post something like that online. And I'm not angry - actually I feel sorry for you. You're not to blame for having such a twisted view of liberals - someone had to teach you all that nonsense. Take some time and educate yourself on the issues - please.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 02:55 PM
This article fails.
Conservatives are REQUIRING you to do things - for example, prayer in school's with "God" being mentioned. So much for the respect for your Hindu classmate. They're being forced to hear that, or to avoid it, they're being forced to leave the room. That's REQUIRING them to do something, not FORBIDDING anything.
I didn't read all 60 comments, but where you fail is with your biggest example - the yin-yang
You can't just have the yin without the yang. The whole idea of a yin-yang is a counter-balance system. In a way you could say the United States is a yin-yang with our current system. But here you destruct the yin yang by making them their own sovereign states.
By making the yin and the yang their own sovereign states, they are no longer dependent on each other for balance.
The majority dominates, and the minuscule minority in each state is oppressed.
You can't separate the two like that.
Furthermore, that's an awful way of looking at political ideology, and you even allude to it as neither are "true freedom." The two-party system is horrendously outdated and doing this nation more harm than good. Lumped in with those conservatives are a bunch of libertarians that don't want God involved in anything - much less prayer at schools. Lumped in with those liberals are socialists who want everything dominated by the government.
That's why those "political" tests are more of a spectrum of at least 4 ideologies, not just a mandatory one or the other.
Though many conservatives are fighting gay marriage, true libertarians that would be lumped in under their system are saying "Screw that - the government has no business in 'marriage' at all, straight or gay." But there is no place for that kind of ideology in either part of your yin-yang analogy since your minority dots are strictly those from the other side being forced to live within the confines of a system they'd find restricting.
That's why this politics section is a joke - none of this has any real academic basis. Turn that in as a paper in a poli sci class at a respected non-partisan university and enjoy your F.
Posted By: Manbearpig (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 04:03 PM
Others can dissect the rest of Havok's points, but this:
"they want to remove God from our government. our 4 fathers built this government with God in mind, who are they to change it."
is so ignorant it hurts my head. Not the part about God in mind, but the "who are they to change it" portion.
Really? Because something was done one way at the formation of the country, NOBODY should be allowed to work towards change? The forefathers didn't seem to mind having slaves, so I guess that should still be going on today too, right? I mean, who are we to doubt them?
Posted By: pd (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 04:44 PM
Where am I getting this from?
1. President Obama and the Liberal dems are trying to make a law requiring manditory service to ones country. Do you watch CNN?
2.Pres Obama and the Liberal Dems are trying to pass the FOCA which requires all hosptial staff to perform abortions no matter what their view on it is. This law is specifically targeted at religous hosptial who don't preform abortions due to religous beliefs. DOn't you watch CNN?
3. Obama and the liberal dems are trying to pass laws to allow gay marriage(no problem there) but the law also mandates that cahtolic and christian churchs have to marry gay people, eevn though it is against their beliefs. AGAIN, DO YOU NOT WATCH OR READ THE NEWS.
Damn Mydnight sun, every single point I brought up in my previous post has been in the news numerous times. Ignorent people like you just piss me off. All these things are happening right now, but your to ignorent read the news or watch it and find these things out. Its not even like these things are hidden. They are on CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS. Dude, just watch tv and you will see these things going on. To deny them shows you have no knowledge about politics and prefer to guess at whats going on in this world. Ignorance to a fault.
Oh and read the freaking constitution. Its litered with references to this nation ebing under God. Dems want under God removed from the dollar bill, the courthouses, and the pledge of alligence. Oh I forgot, those things are unimportant because your books which are not LEGAL documents are so much more important.
FREAKIN IGNORENT!!!
Posted By: Havok: (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 07:40 PM
oh garyml:
I am not a conservative or a republican but like a true liberal you deny everything. The FOCA requires all hospital staff to perform abortions. If they don't, they will be forced to close down. They are trying to make it a law and if nt followed they would not be allowed to stay open. So how was I wrong here? Your just a classic liberal who denies anything and I mean ANYTHING that makes your points look wrong.
Simple as this, abortion is legal right now. The majority of hospitals perform abortions. So if someone wants an abortion, its not hard to get one. So why force the small minority of hospitals who are based off of a relegious belief to perform abortions? The answer is because this is just another thing liberals can try and use to screw the relegious portion of this country.
Posted By: Havok (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 07:52 PM
As long as you go along with every loony thing they want or believe, liberals are awesome. Liberal chicks put out way more often than conservative chicks, and really, isn't the world all about pussy? Woe unto you if you disagree with them, though...they will destroy you.
Posted By: Antihippie (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 09:58 PM
"1. President Obama and the Liberal dems are trying to make a law requiring manditory service to ones country. Do you watch CNN?"
Actually this was first proposed by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower back in the 1950's. And I watch the news fairly regularly. And I frankly I haven't heard boo about it. I don't consider Sean Hannity and Boss Limbaugh to be reliable news sources. They are the only ones talking about it.
"3. Obama and the liberal dems are trying to pass laws to allow gay marriage(no problem there) but the law also mandates that cahtolic and christian churchs have to marry gay people, eevn though it is against their beliefs. AGAIN, DO YOU NOT WATCH OR READ THE NEWS."
Actually they cannot pass laws that mandate The Christian and Catholic Churches to do ANYTHING. Separation of the Church and State is not one sided. It means 1) The Church should stay out of the State's affairs and 2) The State should stay out of the Church's affairs. If this were anywhere near true this would mean that things like affirmative action and equal rights would have to be come Church policy. They would FORCE the Church to allow women clergy. They can't.
"Oh and read the freaking constitution. Its litered with references to this nation ebing under God. Dems want under God removed from the dollar bill, the courthouses, and the pledge of alligence. Oh I forgot, those things are unimportant because your books which are not LEGAL documents are so much more important."
I HAVE read the Constitution. And NO they are NOT littered with "Under God". And if you think they are then apparently YOU have not read the document. Jefferson makes reference to God ONCE in the Declaration of Independence and makes reference to "Our Creator" but other than THAT document, God is NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE. Also "Under God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1955 due to the Cold War and showing opposition to the "Godless" Communists.
Oh and by the way...it's spelled "Ignorant" not "Ignorent". Douche Nozzle.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Havoc,
There are plenty of Hospitals that don't perform abortions. I was born in a Catholic Hospital, I was breach so my mother required a c-section. Two years later when my sister was born she needed another c-section or her uterus would have ruptured, the doctor recommended that she have a hysterectomy because it was too risky for her to have more children. The problem was she had to be transfered to another hospital because the Catholic one would do the hysterectomy because it was "a form of birth control." So if they won't do that I'm sure they don't do abortions, they didn't even sell condoms or birth control pills at their off site drug store.
Posted By: John (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Here is a FULL text of the United States Constitution. Show me where it ONCE mentions God or even makes a veiled reference to God. So Havok. Have some vague idea of what you are talking about before you start typing. Asshead.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Dear Havok,
"3. Obama and the liberal dems are trying to pass laws to allow gay marriage(no problem there) but the law also mandates that cahtolic and christian churchs have to marry gay people, eevn though it is against their beliefs. AGAIN, DO YOU NOT WATCH OR READ THE NEWS."
Fox News doesn't count. The state isn't allowed to intervene in churches' goings-on. It was Bush's regime that blurred the lines of separation of church and state; not this one.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Here's a thought: MydniteSon, and James, you make excellent points. If you weren't such cocks, people might listen. For goodness' sake, you both seem intelligent, but peruse a copy of 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'. You're doing it all wrong. You may be right (or correct, given the context of this discussion) but nobody will listen if you're such obtuse asshead douche nozzles about it (Thanks, MS, for the great put-downs...they really are better than run of the mill). You suffer from the same problem as most left-wingers. You both could be so much more effective if you weren't cunts. Just sayin'.
Posted By: Suggestomatic (Guest) on April 26, 2009 at 01:01 AM
Havok.
I don't think that you are going to get much traction with that "The Government is trying to for churches to marry gay people" argument. Even tried to get married in the Catholic church? There are a lot of requirements, especially if you aren't catholic. If the government was able to force the church to marry someone, it would have happened by now. Someone somewhere has gotten angry that the church has refused to marry them and tried to sue. And failed.
I spend a lot of time reading up on new sites about the various goings on, and I've never seen a single credible report on the government trying to mandate gay marriage.
I mean, how would that work anyway? Churches don't marry people. The state does. Churches perform ceremonies. The legal marriage agreement is obtained by the state. What is the government going to do, step in a tell a church that they have no jurisdiction over that they have to perform an unnecessary ceremony? It doesn't even make sense. People generally think of that ceremony as marriage, but you can get all the ceremonies you want, it won't get you marriage status.
I just did a search for the last 15 minutes typing in things like:
"government will force churches to marry gays", "force churches gays", "government forcing churches homosexual", etc.
I didn't get any credible links that had news storys about the government trying to do this. I got some blogs talking about it, but nothing that was from the AP or linked to a newspaper. If you have some links, I'd love to read it. Read that without sarcasm, because I'm not kidding. If the government has said something like that I'm totally opposed to it and I want to know about it, but I don't believe that they have.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on April 26, 2009 at 01:26 AM
You need a good middle ground both sides have good ideas.
Also nice to see this here, Politics here are TOO leftist and I was getting sick of the anti christian postings that were being made here
Posted By: The Rev (Guest) on April 26, 2009 at 08:54 AM
Can I get an abortion in Conservativia?
Posted By: rape victim (Guest) on April 26, 2009 at 02:21 PM
rape victim (Guest)
I think you should be embarrassed right off the face of the earth for mocking a serious crime, dumbass.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on April 26, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Havoc,
There is not one reference to "God" in the entire Constitution. Try reading it before you spout off with retarded logic.
Posted By: swamp (Guest) on April 27, 2009 at 11:14 AM
A good column, and on the surface, some interesting ideas.
The ideas in the responses are also interesting, but they tend to represent incomplete thinking.
One read said that conservatism conserves the power in the hands of a select few, and later said that he believes in the basic goodness of people.
While it's an interesting argument, it's filled with flaws. First off, conservatism is not about conserving power, but about limiting power. If you understand what our founding fathers were speaking of, it is about limiting power in government, and allowing the power to be as much as possible in the hands of the individual.
Secondly, the "liberal" viewpoint of today is that we need government in place to regulate industries, including the banking industry, the car industry, the food industry, and others. Regulations must be specific and strict. This idea does not conform with the thought that people are generally good. If people were generally good, why would you have to have such restrictions on them? Conservatism, in its pure form, allows people to be "generally good", because it puts in the people's hands the ability to make judgements over their own lives and finances.
The idea that libearlism provides the most opportunity is simply wrong. Liberalism attempts to provide everyone the same outcome. Conservatism attempts to provide everyone with the same opportunity.
True conservatism also stays out of the bedroom, the house, the lives of the people for whom it works for. This idea of legislating morality is simply not a conservative idea - it is an idea used by both Republicans AND Democrats in our wonderful society.
Someone mentioned the idea that in consevative land, people would not be forgiven, but in liberalland they would - well, if you want to talk about that from the persepective of today - I have been judged by both conservative and liberals - that exists on both ends of the spectrum, but if you are talking true conservatism, conservatism wants to stay out of your life and let you make as many decisions as you possbily can - that includes the bedroom and the birth process.
And the idea that in a conservative country, the rich slowly get richer and the poor get poorer is inaccurate, and is based on how our country has run over the last 200 years (a slow drift towards liberalism). If a country woudl stay true to the ideals of conservatism, the same opportunity would exist for all, with the laws of the country reflecting that as opposed to laws that favor one style of business or sector of the community. The opportunity would remain the same, and everyone would have the opportunity toe get "rich" - it would simply be dependant on ability...
Of course, we live in a not so idealic place...
Posted By: Stephen (Guest) on April 27, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Hey, whoa, hey now. I didn't even use a swear word or an insult, suggestomatic. I'm making valid points. I seriously believe that Fox News doesn't count as real news half the time. Every news organization contains too much opinion and not enough news, but only Fox passes off opinion and hearsay as actual news. Like catholic churches being forced to marry gay people. That blows my mind. And if I wanted to win people over, I could. That isn't my goal. My goal is to make the stupid thoughts get out of my head by bashing them. (the ideas, not the people usually).
And to Mikel, I don't think "rape victim" was trying to make light of anything, I think he was making a serious point. Can a rape victim get an abortion in Conservativia? How about an incest victim? One could argue that hard-right republicans are mocking rape victims by trying to tell them they have to go through labor with the child. I won't, but one could...
Ok who am I kidding. Yes I will. It is mockery. "rape victim" was just using the name-section in a serious manner, where it is normally used in a comedic manner. But the question was legit.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on April 27, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Also a thought just occurred to me as far as prayer in schools goes. My Northern Virginia school had it right. You don't need to mention god in schools. It singles out atheists like me, and I don't want religion mentioned specifically in my schools. What my school did was have a moment of silence during the announcements every day, where prayer was optional for those who wanted to partake in it. The opportunity is there, and god doesn't have to be acknowledged in an educational setting.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on April 28, 2009 at 03:00 AM
Thank you, Havok. That was best laugh I've received all day. Next time, I would suggest asking a person with an IQ over 100 to write one of your comments.
Posted By: David (Guest) on April 28, 2009 at 06:04 AM
Awesome article. Great work.
Posted By: Pete S (Guest) on April 28, 2009 at 09:50 AM
James, using the rape of a women as a political tool is extremely offensive.
No conservative in their right mind has ever said they would restrict the access to abortions for rape victims.
What has been argued is that late-term abortions are murder since the baby would most likely survive if delivered and that using abortion as a fucking birth control devise for women too lazy to use protection is stupid and medically dangerous.
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on April 28, 2009 at 09:51 AM
James (Registered) (Guest) - that wasn't good enough for a crybaby atheist father who felt the moment of silence was offensive to his daughter and fought to remove it all together.
And by forcing the word 'God' removed from the english language, are you trying to hide Him from your daughters life?
Isn't the atheist mantra free choice? What if she wants to know about God?
My wife and I have custody of her 14 yrd old granddaughter and give her the choice of coming to church or not. We don't force her in anyway.
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on April 28, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Will Conservative land be based on Reagan? Or will it be based on the modern Social Conservative platform they have embraced?
Conservatisms was VASTLY different 25-30 years ago (and less divisive I might add) than it is today...so which one are we going with?
Liberal land - same question...which one are we going with? Liberal Democracy? Social Liberalism?
Again this is a stupid argument to have because there are VASTLY different forms of each...where would the Conservative liberalist fit in? Yes they do exist..look it up
Trying to pigeon hole everything like you have done here is just infantile and the way it might be explained to a 6th or 7th grader in school...there are MANY nuisances of each you failed to take into account
Posted By: glen (Guest) on April 28, 2009 at 02:53 PM
While your argument is rather sophomoric and cosmetic, what you're trying to get at, from a purist perspective, isn't a difference between 'forbids' and 'requires,' it's rights and liberties. Liberties protect an individual from the government, hence conservative. Rights are the opposite, when the government protects the individual. That's why liberals say Health Care is a right. Admittedly, the conservatives have co-opted this with the 'right' to bear arms, which is actually a protection from government, but they're better at messaging anyway (the Death Tax.)
The point is moot anyway. Parties co-opt policies that get them over 50%. The right to life is indeed that, but it requires government protection of an (arguable) individual, reversing conservative creed. And your point, too, is moot. You can spin any policy between your false dichotomy of require and forbid. Conservatism in its current form 'requires' a pregnant woman have the baby, the agnostic kid to be ostracized by prayer every day, the murderer to die, the terminally ill man to live. It you want to take it into health care and education, conservatives 'require' the less fortunate to do without or with demonstrably less. Likewise for liberalism and 'forbids,' you can play word games all day. Viewing the two objectively neither is manifestly superior until you consider your own interests, priorities and values.
Finally, pure libertarianism is no saving grace from this either. It may be great for Dubai or Switzerland (economically), but its no way to govern any civilization. Any rational approach to history will show you that.
Posted By: Guest#5877 (Guest) on April 28, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Good write up.. much better then that liberal fag Andrew Tobolowsky.
That guy is by far the worst "writer" on 411.
Posted By: Kevin (Guest) on April 28, 2009 at 04:54 PM
...and by "worst" writer, I mean the guy who angers me by making me question my beliefs! Damn that guy for making me question myself!!!!
Posted By: Kevin's Subconscious (Guest) on April 28, 2009 at 07:25 PM
Bullshit...
Your representation of Conservatism is overly generous (There are plenty of things I couldn't build on that plot of land in conservative land: a homosexual night club for one) and the definition of liberalism doesn't give credit where credit's due (The reason you can't build that destructive factory on your land is that it WILL KILL PEOPLE, which is a lot more reasonable than the reason you can't build that gay nightclub).
Overall, a thoroughly ridiculous argument...
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 03:28 AM
To mikel,
Those kind of atheists bother me. The atheism mantra is free choice, and I think the moment of silence was a great compromise, because you could choose to pray or choose not to. And I like that you gave your wife's granddaughter the choice of whether to go to church. If she chooses to go by her own free will, she is much less likely to defect from religion later in life. It will be her religion, not her parents' religion, if you get what I mean by that.
I only think god should be left out of schools because school is for teaching fact. I'm not saying "there is no god" but I don't believe in one. I don't think schools should say that there is no god, nor that there is one. Religion should be taught at home and in church/temple/synagogue. Because everyone's interpretation is different and it is a slippery slope.
And even though I am pro choice, I obviously don't believe abortion should be used as birth control. But if it weren't for the republican idea of abstinence only sex education, and people like the pope saying condoms SPREAD THE AIDS VIRUS IN AFRICA (WTF!!!!), we wouldn't have nearly as many abortions in this country. Bush-republicans believe in preemptive warfare, but when democrats try preemptive measures against abortion, it's suddenly an immoral idea to teach kids in school what condoms are. It's a disgrace.
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on April 29, 2009 at 09:41 PM
STAY CURRENT