Main difference between conservatives and liberals?
While it may not have been sonicfrog’s purpose to explain the difficulties the Democrats are currently facing, I do think his latest reflection gets at the problems of the majority party:
Conservatives are united behind a few simple ideas, and liberals are a group of divergent people united behind a few simple ideals. The former is much easier to craft into policy than the latter.
There is a huge difference between ideas and ideals.
I know I have more to say on this, but just caught it before bed, so thought I’d put it out there for debate and discussion.
32 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Ideology is the system of ideals vs ideas…. the very basis of economic and political theory and policy. When a country is in crisis, dare we dream or do we take action? There in lies the difference between Obama and Bush…Democrats and Republicans.
Comment by Spartann — January 29, 2010 @ 5:25 am - January 29, 2010
Liberals rule (dictate, legislate, control); Conservatives lead (inspire, motivate, liberate.) For examples see Obama and Reagan.
Comment by James Lloyd — January 29, 2010 @ 7:58 am - January 29, 2010
If we allow that people generally known as conservatives (or, at least, people opposed to modern liberalism) include libertarians, law-and-order conservatives, national defense conservatives, and social conservatives, I do think there is perhaps almost as much diversity among conservatives as liberals. The difference though, IMHO, is that conservatives don’t rely on government to get their way, and assuming conservatives are willing to compromise with each other (for instance, pro-lifers willing to accept abortion as a states’ rights/constitutional issue rather than something that should be legislated from DC), the conflicts conservatives have with each other are pretty minor. Liberals are much more likely to come into conflict with each other since they tend to view life as a pie of fixed-size, and they all want their group to get more of the pie, and they are typically not shy about admitting that they want some other group to get less of the pie. A just and noble society for them has much, much more to do with who pays the taxes and who receives the funding than it does with conservatives. Because of this, liberals are much more likely to come into conflict with each other than conservatives, especially conservatives with a libertarian, small-government bent.
Comment by chad — January 29, 2010 @ 8:13 am - January 29, 2010
The author of a left leaning blog recently said if he had to summarize in a single word what conservatives value most it is “freedom” and the word that best describes what liberals value most it is “justice”. I thought it was insightful and I agree.
We allow government to grow, regulate and control our lives to accomplish “social justice” goals, but it does so at a cost. Every new government initiative reduces our individual liberty/freedom. And once we consent to allowing the government to take away a freedom, it is rarely ever restored.
The Tea Party Movement, which is really a “Neo-Constitutionalist Movement”, is an expression by the people they do not want to give away more freedoms in the name of social justice.
Comment by Scott — January 29, 2010 @ 9:06 am - January 29, 2010
“Conservatism”: a coherent, workable, realistic political philosophy (“classical liberalism”), which is usually surrounded by unworkable social engineering ideas;
“Liberalism” (in the modern, socialist/do-gooder incarnation): an incoherent, unworkable, unrealistic political philosophy, which is usually surrounded by unworkable social engineering ideas.
Comment by filbert — January 29, 2010 @ 9:32 am - January 29, 2010
I think Dan, or Sonic, would really need to flesh out this “insight” a bit. What are the ideas, and ideals that you refer to? Do you seriously think that liberals don’t rally around ideas (and please don’t reduce this to yet another silly insult game)? Do you really think that conservatives have no ideals?
While we are trying to get all creative here, lets put the good ol’, obvious definition of the difference between liberals and conservatives on the table.
Conservatives tend to embrace and defend the ideas and ideals that are our legacy from our ancestors. Liberals tend to explore and create new ideas and ideals to respond to new realities.
I would argue that both have a legitimate and necessary place in any society. Every individual probably has both tendencies within themselves to different degrees, with many of us being recognizably associated with one side or the other, for the most part.
Comment by Tano — January 29, 2010 @ 10:35 am - January 29, 2010
American Conservatives (differentiated from Classical Conservatism, which we do not practice here): individuality, freedom to succeed or fail, competition, limited government, Federalism (ie, states rights,) taxation for the necessities as laid out in the Constitution, helping each other through individual actions and organizations, government intrusion ONLY when it is highly necessary, all Men are created equal. Economic freedom. Freedom for all.
American Liberals/progressives: the group is more important than the individual, government intrusion to make sure no one fails (which means no one can succeed on a high end), no competition as everyone is the same, massive federal government, states and people have limited rights and must serve the collective, huge taxes (which are to be laid on “that other group”), only government can help people, and some groups need more help than others, because they aren’t inherently capable on their own. Government owns the means of the economy. Freedom for some, but, not for others.
Comment by William Teach — January 29, 2010 @ 11:23 am - January 29, 2010
William,
Your list of liberal attributes tell me that either you know nothing whatsoever about liberalism, or that you are determined to make this yet another lets-insult-the-liberals thread.
It will be interesting to see if ANYONE here is willing or capable of addressing the issue seriously.
Comment by Tano — January 29, 2010 @ 11:42 am - January 29, 2010
A liberal looks at the world as it should be. A conservative looks at the world as it is.
Comment by LCRW — January 29, 2010 @ 11:51 am - January 29, 2010
Stephen Colbert Rips Harold Ford Jr., (D) video included.
Imus In The Morning, Fox Business News, has been updating us all week on Harold Ford Jr’s bid for the New York Senate Seat.
Is Harold Ford Jr A Gutless Weasel? Does A Bear Go In The Woods?
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/01/imus-harold-ford-jr-is-gutless-weasel.html
Comment by keyboard jockey — January 29, 2010 @ 11:55 am - January 29, 2010
A Conservative addresses with facts and documentation. A Leftist lies lies lies then ignores when he’s called out.
Take Tano for example…
Comment by The_Livewire — January 29, 2010 @ 12:18 pm - January 29, 2010
I found William’s definition broader and more complete than your one sentence definition of each, Tano. You really didn’t put much out on the table other than a feel good statement. I would like to know more details of what you think distinguishes a conservative from a liberal.
Comment by Scott Lassiter — January 29, 2010 @ 12:26 pm - January 29, 2010
Can you point out where I went wrong, Tano?
Comment by William Teach — January 29, 2010 @ 12:31 pm - January 29, 2010
I would amend it to say, “Conservatives are united behind a few simple ideas that work.”
Conservatism is the philosophy that embraces that which has been proven to work and rejects that which has been proven to fail. Progressivism is the opposite.
Comment by V the K — January 29, 2010 @ 12:34 pm - January 29, 2010
Thank you V the K, very concise.
Conservatism also adapts to new issues (take a lot of us on this blog for example) while Progressivism believes that issues should adapt to their beliefs.
Comment by The_Livewire — January 29, 2010 @ 12:48 pm - January 29, 2010
I think conservatism is open to trying new ideas, but unlike progressives, we’re not into throwing ever larger amounts of money at failed ideas and hoping for a different result.
Comment by V the K — January 29, 2010 @ 1:56 pm - January 29, 2010
I have a hard time understanding the difference between conservative and liberal as there is no concise definition for either, plus the definitions have shifted over time (see: classical liberal). It is interesting to obvserve the good vs. evil dichotomy being presented here: conservatism adapts, is coherent, leads, inspires, loves freedom; liberalism is unworkable, restrictive, dictatorial, selfish.
If this is really all there is to liberalism, why would anyone embrace that philosophy?
And isn’t adaptation antithetic to most definitions of conservatism?
Comment by DRH — January 29, 2010 @ 2:15 pm - January 29, 2010
Tano, mine was a generalization of what makes each party tick. Here is what I am reffering to – I’m looking at the main concerns that seems to draw people to each party.
One of the main draws to the conservative movement, in it’s current incarnation, is the specific idea of smaller government and control on spending… i.e. no new taxes. The idea is a broad one, and those who find that the biggest concern tend to lean toward that party. This also creates a fairly monolithic nature of thought within the party, as evidenced by the “purge” last year of anyone who is considered a moderate, such as Colin Powell, or John McCain.
Liberals and Democrats, on the other hand, pride themselves on more than anything else being the party of social justice and high ideals. They tend to think of themselves as the group who are more concerned for the rights of the common man. This train of thought tends to attract disparate groups that congeal under the liberal banner. But these groups are more of a loose knit confederation than a tightly bound society. This is also why, as pissed of as the Progressives are, they are not calling for the ejection of moderates within their ranks with the same ferocity that you saw with the right.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m neither saying that one party is all ideas, and the other is all ideals, or that one is better than the other. What I’m looking at is the general way the two parties function.
Lets look at this in terms of media consumption. Do you wonder why right wing talk radio has been so successful, yet the attempt to create and foster a network liberal leaning failed utterly? Let’s ignore content for the moment, and the opinions of whether it sucked or not. Lets face it, there is plenty of suckiness that has succeeded wildly in the medium of radio. Howard Stern comes to mind. We all agree that the country contains a fairly even percentage of liberals and conservatives. Even those who are self identified as moderate will break toward one or the other political philosophical camps when they vote. When it comes down to bras tax, there are very few middle-of-the-road types out there. So if there are an even number of both liberals and conservatives out there, why does conservative talk radio succeed while liberal base talk radio does not? Conservatives are a more cohesive bunch that rally around a few specific ideas, based on limited government, which cross over ethnic, religious, and gender lines. Liberals are more concerned with the reasons that create those lines. They are as a general rule more attuned to each demographic group. So if the talk radio host isn’t addressing your specific issue, then the host will not be able to keep you tuned in, and that radio show doesn’t sustain a large enough audience to earn the type of rating to keep it on the air.
This is a generalization made to help explain my view on this. I have my B.A in Telecommunications, which includes a heavy dose of media business management and practices, so I know there are many other reasons for the failure of AA. The business model, frankly, stank to high heaven. You can’t build a huge network with tremendous overhead when there is no market proven to support the cost. That was just stupid business practice. But you would think that a few of the shows would have been able to survive on their own. It’s all about the bottom line. $$$$. In radio, audience share = $$$$. And yes – the content, in my opinion, absolutely sucked!. Most of the hosts took the worst techniques used by Rush and Hannity and tried to make it work for them. But that’s just me. I am not a liberal.
Gotta go to Costo with the Sonic-Mate now.
Comment by Sonicfrog — January 29, 2010 @ 3:28 pm - January 29, 2010
The text book definitions of the 3 democratic models for liberalism, socialism, and conservatism bases what they are on 3 cores: the moral, the economic, and the political
Liberalism (which American conservatism is based on) wants the most freedom in all 3 cores. Government gets involved only when it truly needs to. There are some small restrictions on voting, but, mostly open.
Classic Conservatism: government stays out of the economic core, there are more restrictions on voting and politics, and gets much more involved in the moral core, ie, your personal business. This is what European Conservatives are about.
Socialism: government stays out of the moral core, looks for almost mob rule in the political core, and is heavily involved in the economic core.
We can obviously see how some of this has changed over time, with both American conservatives, who are Classical Liberals, and American Liberals, who are socialists, getting the government way too involved with the Moral core, especially the Social Conservatives and Progressives, regulating this, slapping around that. I wish I could find the long post I did about this at one time, can’t hit the right phrase. Sigh. But, those are the basics.
As for American Conservatism, also originally called neo-conservatism, which, again, is Classical Liberalism, something I wrote a while ago:
If we can break it down, what conservatives want is limited government control of our private lives and our business lives (known as the Moral and Economic cores of classical liberalism,) low taxation, responsible government, strong national Defense, and an adherence to the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, particularly looking at the 9th and 10th Amendments. We want it to be a nation of law, not a nation of the whim of the politician. We want elected politicians to be responsive to the People, not running around doing whatever the heck they want, ignoring what they campaigned on.
We believe in the greatness and uniqueness of the United States. We know there are problems, what nation, what state, what county, what city, what sub-division, what family doesn’t? But, we do not want to remake our country. We want it to thrive on the principles established back in the late 1700’s. And, yes, leaders are needed. Leaders who espouse, and follow, the beliefs. At times, compromise must be made, such is life. But the leaders, particularly the elected ones, needn’t be squishy. They do need to stand for something, stick to their guns, and stop apologizing, stop knuckling under to those who want to push the USA to become something its Founders never wanted.
Comment by William Teach — January 29, 2010 @ 3:50 pm - January 29, 2010
‘Can you point out where I went wrong, Tano?”
Sure William,
American Liberals/progressives: the group is more important than the individual,
Totally ridiculous. The only subculture that I know that fits that definition would be the military, sports teams, and some religious groups. Liberalism has always been rooted in the freedom of the individual – the freedom to be treated with equality even if you happen to be black, or a woman, or gay (all of these efforts being resisted by conservatives). In all of the areas of life that rely on individuality, creativity, breaking free of the constraints of the group – such as science or the arts, you will find liberals predominate.
“government intrusion to make sure no one fails”
Also ridiculous. Liberals do believe in a safety net to help people maintain at least a minimal level of dignity even when they fail, but people still fail all the time, no matter how liberal the society
“(which means no one can succeed on a high end),”
Yeah – except tomorrow you will again rail against all the “elitists” and “limousine liberals’ and rich hollywood stars, and liberal gazillionaires – all of whom give plenty of evidence that liberals have no intent to inhibit success.
“no competition as everyone is the same,”
Where does that come from? Liberals compete and win, in politics (who owns DC these days), in business, in science, in every walk of life.
“massive federal government”
Federal government grew more under Bush than under Clinton. Doncha remember?
” states and people have limited rights”
States yes. The people have unlimited rights. Dont you recall that it is you conservatives who are always lambasting liberal judges for finding new rights under our Constitution – forgetting that the Constitution is meant to limit the powers of government, not restrict the rights of individuals. Conservatives argue that people have no rights under the Constitution unless they are specifically enumerated – a thoroughly restictive view of rights.
“and must serve the collective”
????? What planet are you on William? Who is serving what collective?
“huge taxes (which are to be laid on “that other group”),”
Aye, a 39% top rate instead of a 35% rate. So we can pay for the spending that there really is no political will to cut.
“only government can help people,”
Ridiculous again. There is a very large and vibrant NGO movement filled with liberals helping to make things better in myriad ways in this society, without the help of government.
“and some groups need more help than others, because they aren’t inherently capable on their own.”
If you mean the group that is defined by that incapacity, then that is obviously true. There will always be people who cannot succeed in society for any number of reasons. They should be given extra help if they need it, why not?
“Government owns the means of the economy.”
Totally ridiculous. Once again, William, what planet do you reside on?
” Freedom for some, but, not for others.”
No, Equal freedom for all. Its you guys who have such a problem with the concept of equality.
Comment by Tano — January 29, 2010 @ 4:42 pm - January 29, 2010
William,
I dont know what to make of your second comment, #19. It would be hard to discuss it, because I do not see any sense in any of your definitions.
Some modern conservatives may trace their roots to “classical liberalism” – that is after all how society evolves – liberal innovations seem radical at first, they get accepted as mainstream, and then they end up being defended as core parts of our legacy – but there are other, thoroughly non-liberal strains in modern conservatism.
Neoconservatism is not, in any way classical liberalism. The original neoconservatives were all originally Trotsykites – who moved from the radical left to the radical right in very quick order. They were the enemies of liberals when they were on the left, and still are on the right.
Liberals are not socialists. Modern liberalism represents a classical liberalism that learned and assimilated the lessons from the horrors created by total laizze faire economics and the political corruption that emerged from that (similar to what we see playing out in Russia these days). Many of those who suffered from and fought those conditions were socialists, so you can certainly find some socialist themes in modern liberalism, but it is philosophy that coalesced around FDR (not giving him real authorship rights, but he was a central figure) who found the way to save captialism at the moment of its worst failure, by building a system of regulation for the markets and a robust safety net. Those are the economic foundations of modern liberalism – NOT the state ownership of the means of production, which would be socialism.
Anyway, thats what I think you got wrong, and its pretty fundamental, so I dont know if we can take this anywhere.
Comment by Tano — January 29, 2010 @ 4:58 pm - January 29, 2010
Speaking of liberals and conservatives, did any of you see that thorough filleting of the GOP house members by our President?
Kick ass! Lets do this every week indeed!
And no teleprompter!!!
Comment by Tano — January 29, 2010 @ 5:06 pm - January 29, 2010
They aren’t my definitions, Tano. They are coming straight from a text book on political theory, one of the only books I kept from my college years.
As far as neo-conservatism goes, the term goes back to the 1930′s, when classical liberals started calling themselves conservatives in response to socialist/progressive FDR calling himself a liberal, which he was anything but. After that, it became more muddled.
As far as you liberals not being socialists, what have we seen? The government taking over private business, as well as telling private business how to operate, interferring all over the place, and this is what you folks want and cheer. That is text book perfect socialism.
What I saw and heard was the typical Obama lecturing and being petulant, rather than listening, which was the point of him being there.
Comment by William Teach — January 29, 2010 @ 6:01 pm - January 29, 2010
Speaking of liberals and conservatives, did any of you see that thorough filleting of the GOP house members by our President?
You mean where the black child screamed, whined, and blamed everyone else for his problems?
You mean where the black child who namecalls everyone as “teabaggers” and “Nazis” is whining and wagging his fingers about being careful about what you call other people?
I agree. Every week we should have Obama on TV saying how stupid everyone else is and how if we just all did everything he said, life would be glorious. It’s funny to watch the black child try to win votes by namecalling people.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2010 @ 6:42 pm - January 29, 2010
“The government taking over private business”
You know that the government took over a few businesses last year, temporarily, in order to prevent a massive meltdown of our economy. If GM and/or Chrysler had gone down, in the economic environment that existed then, it is highly probable that all the third party parts manufacturers than supply them, and Ford, would also have gone under – and then Ford would have had to stop production. That would have been an economic disaster to the industrial midwest, and the nation as a whole. There is no way that the government is going to maintain their stake in these companies. They will be sold off as soon as the health of the companies allows and the price can earn back for the taxpayers most of their money. I suspect you know all that.
I cannot beleve that some Republican president would not have done the same.
” as well as telling private business how to operate, interferring all over the place, and this is what you folks want and cheer.”
Absolutely. Its called regulation. Its purpose is to prevent criminality, and to protect society from what, as we see so perfectly illustrated these past two years, can be the catastrophic effects for everyone of the screw-ups of a few.
” That is text book perfect socialism.”
Sorry William, its time to go back to the textbooks. This is not socialism at all. Socialism is a philosophy based on the notion of the state owning the means of production. In a liberal capitalist system, there might be some extraordinary moments, such as this one, where the government needs to step into a few select industries for a very temporary time, in order to prevent systemic catastrophe – but for all other times, business remains in the private sector.
Regulation is not socialism. A safety net is not socialism.
Comment by Tano — January 29, 2010 @ 10:23 pm - January 29, 2010
Sonic,
Thanks for your response. It seems more reasonable as you flesh it out.
Maybe it is true that there is no one single unifying idea, or ideology amongst liberals. Liberalism is, by definition, about creativity, trying new ideas, experimentation – so the thrust is toward a competition of ideas about how to actualize certain ideals, rather than, as on the right, an ongoing agreement to embrace a canon.
As for AA radio – here is my perspective. I have never listened to one minute of it. Most of my liberal friends haven’t either. We never rejected AA, we never were drawn to even try it out in the first place.
This is just anecdotal – I have no idea if this was a driving factor in their failure. I imagine that I never was attracted to even the idea of talk radio because my instinct would be to argue with the people that I heard pontificating on the radio, not become a dittohead for them. And that would be just frustrating, not entertaining.
Comment by Tano — January 29, 2010 @ 10:50 pm - January 29, 2010
If GM and/or Chrysler had gone down, in the economic environment that existed then, it is highly probable that all the third party parts manufacturers than supply them, and Ford, would also have gone under – and then Ford would have had to stop production.
Wrong.
You see, GM and Chrysler are not the only auto producers in this country. There are several others, i.e. BMW, Honda, and Toyota, who also buy parts from these third-party suppliers.
Furthermore, the collapse of GM and Chrysler would have meant more market share for all of these companies, which means more production for their factories, which means more workers at these factories are required.
But since the goal was to support the unions who drove these companies out of business in the first place with their insane demands for twice the pay and four times the guaranteed benefits to build cars of half the quality and a quarter of the usefulness, the Obama Socialist Party nationalized these companies.
Perhaps if you actually had some intelligence in these matters and weren’t repeating talking points handed to you by the Obama Party, Tano, you would be able to contribute, instead of making foolish statements.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2010 @ 11:26 pm - January 29, 2010
Absolutely. Its called regulation. Its purpose is to prevent criminality, and to protect society from what, as we see so perfectly illustrated these past two years, can be the catastrophic effects for everyone of the screw-ups of a few.
Then let’s take a look at what companies operated and controlled by the Obama Party and their cronies were doing.
Long story short, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under orders from the Obama Party and Barack Obama, securitized trillions of dollars of junk loans — while lying and saying that they weren’t really junk to the people who bought them.
In short, when Tano and Barack Obama say they believe in “regulation”, that’s just something they use to punish and steal from private companies while they and their fellow cronies break every rule in the book. Indeed, as we see from Charles Rangel, Barack Obama and the Obama Party are a bunch of tax cheats and thieves who regularly lie on their financial disclosures and refuse to pay the taxes they impose on others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2010 @ 11:42 pm - January 29, 2010
Socialism is a philosophy based on the notion of the state owning the means of production.
Which is exactly what Barack Obama and the Obama Party want to do. They openly have stated that their goal is to nationalize companies and put the means of production in the government’s hands.
Also, in the latest news; the Department of Health and Human Services is desperately trying to cover up all the paid “contractors” they have who are going around trying to pretend they are independent voices in the media while really propagandizing for Obama. Sounds a lot like Tano, who has already admitted he’s a “government contractor”.
And where does paid propagandist Tano work,
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 29, 2010 @ 11:54 pm - January 29, 2010
Very interesting post and comments thread. I’d like to put in my two cents.
The Liberal looks at the world and sees that millions of years of evolution has brought forth this being called ‘Man’. And this being is the closest thing in the universe to perfection. This is a being that learns, that thinks, that can write poetry, that can love. Unfortunately this being is surrounded by systems that warp and distort the potential of Man, right from his birth. What systems you ask? The Liberal will have a list ready: The family system is sexist and patriarchal, the justice system is racist, the education system is inept, the political system is corrupt, the economic system is exploitative, etc. And all these flawed systems screw-up this perfect man child. And the liberal will then say “If only we could reform these systems then the potential for Man would bloom and who knows what heights he could reach” So the Liberal is constantly asking for reform, and then more reform and then new rules to fix the reforms he did five years ago.. He also by extension makes Man exempt for anything that he might do. So the guy who robs a liquor store is not at fault, it’s because he came from a broken home, or because he is poor or the victim of racism or because he is uneducated etc.
The Conservative looks at the Man creature and says “This is an animal” Granted he is a clever animal, but he is still just a really smart monkey who has trouble holding back his animal instincts. And given the chance he will steal from those around him who are weaker, he will take money from his bosses cash register if you don’t watch him. He is going to cheat on his wife if given the opportunity, and If he thinks he can get away with it then yes, he will rob that liquor store. Some (not all) Conservatives define this as original sin. And all the society systems that we have in place (man-woman marriage, justice, tradition, religion etc) all these systems are designed to keep Man’s base nature in check, and allow civilization to have a chance. And that if there really are benefits to a reform in the system those benefits will become manifest and valid by their own merits and by letting society test them out, not by being imposed on society.
Sorry so long winded…
Comment by Jim in St Louis — January 30, 2010 @ 4:45 am - January 30, 2010
Jim,
YOu might have to tweak your thesis a bit to reflect the fact that it is liberals, not conservatives, who being more likely to accept evolution, are more likely to recognize that humans are animals, just a few mutations removed from the other apes.
And though conservatives tend to accept the christian notion of a “fallen” man, it is still an idealized “special child of god” type notion of humanity that is far more idealistic than the secular hairless ape notion.
Comment by Tano — January 30, 2010 @ 10:26 am - January 30, 2010
I have stayed away from this whole conversation for several reasons.
First, it is a fool’s errand to try to capture a sunrise or a sunset in a few words. An “idea” might be something which stirs a revolution or temporarily staunches the bleeding from a punctured artery. An “ideal” for one person may be an abortion without complications and for another person it might be a carrying a child to term and reveling in the magic of the joy and learning which comes with a Down syndrome life coupled with your own.
Secondly, through forces beyond their control, both political parties have been fractured into internal groups which skirmish against one an other. The Democrats are openly discarding the “liberal” label for the “progressive” brand. We could argue for a month of Sundays about what a “liberal” promotes in a representative democracy which is an extremely “liberal” government form. Now we have to rethink our understandings of Democrats in order to try to grasp the meaning of “progressive.”
Third, it is fairly common to use ambiguous words in spin, slogans and demagoguery. “Hope” and “change” are two great examples. A man standing before a firing squad might well “hope” the bullets are quick and final. An Adonis president might work to “change” the expectations of the people to peacefully accept what the government gives them under the banner of “social justice.”
“Ideas” and “ideals” are catchy and snazzy together, but they carry no meaning. Apply them to bank robbers and then to troops on the front and then to people waiting for a class 5 hurricane to hit and then to some Joe running for the school board and you quickly realize that they are words that stir emotion, but mean different things under different circumstances.
Frankly, the Democrats have corrupted the classic concept of “liberal” limited government to the point that they have forced themselves to admit that they have believed in “progressive” limited government all along. “Progressive limited government” is all but an oxymoron. They are not promoting limited progressive government; they are hot for smashing the limits of government that restrain progressive government. There is no room for “ideal” limited government if, by definition you are dedicated to being a “progressive.”
Of course, the Democrats quickly charge that the opposite of progressive is regressive. In doing so, they obscure and lie about the huge middle ground they ignore which is “balance” and “harmony” in limited government. It is all very Zen-like and hardly useful in rough and tumble politics.
Comment by heliotrope — January 30, 2010 @ 10:40 am - January 30, 2010