I'm not sure why conservatives pat themselves on the back so often for "winning the war on ideas". If the past 4 years are any indication, conservative ideas boil down to cutting taxes and privatizing everything they see. That isn't to say they havn't had good ideas (school vouchers for example), but there are problems conservatives havn't even begun to address. Here are the two most important areas where "liberals" outshine "conservatives".

1) Health Care: Many "liberal" academics and politicans have been working on expanding health coverage in the United States. Ideas have ranged from simple reforms (Kerry's plan for government re-imbursement of "catastrophic" medical expenses to lower insurance premimums) to structural changes (single payer systems like Canada or National Insurance schemes). Conservative responce? Health Saving Accounts. brilliant. Whether you think "liberal" ideas are good or not, i don't think you can argue that "conservatives" have given the problem very little thought.

2) Global Poverty: Another area where "liberals" seem to be the only ones admitting there's a problem. Admittedly, some of the ideas proposed are bad (fair trade, unconditional debt forgiveness), but folks like economist Jeff Sachs have been developing reasonable suggestions for improving global living standards. Once again, "conservatives" don't seem to care at all.

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 3:08 AM. Reason : ``]

8/5/2005 3:01:23 AM

Quote :

"2) Global Poverty: Another area where "liberals" seem to be the only ones admitting there's a problem. Admittedly, some of the ideas proposed are bad (fair trade, unconditional debt forgiveness), but folks like economist Jeff Sachs have been developing reasonable suggestions for improving global living standards. Once again, "conservatives" don't seem to care at all."

Some of us don't think that it's any of America's business to mess with other countrys' affairs.

Please note that I am not a modern conservative, so don't play any of those 'Iraq' cards or whatever. I don't think that we should be there either.

It's a matter of sticking to our own domestic affairs and allowing other countries to do the same. I honestly don't know why modern conservatives aren't interested in global 'poverty,' though, as their love for globalization seems to have no bounds.

8/5/2005 3:19:41 AM

Here's a third I didn't use the first time because i thought it seemed obvious, but what the hell.

3) Enviromental Protection: Again, conservatives generally seem silent on this issue. Of course, politicans as a whole (Democrat or Republican) seem pretty reluctant to do very much to protect the enviroment, but I think the enviroment is certainly a touch stone issue for the "left". And as such they have been more than willing to put a great deal of thought into the issue.

Got a problem with air and water quality? urban development? responcible logging? Give me 5 minutes and I can have you a list of a dozen "liberals" offering solutions to these kinds of problems. Yet it's hard to find a conservative that is even passionate about this issues, let alone one that could offer a solution.

8/5/2005 5:33:52 AM

What are you talking about? Killing Iraqis rules. How else are we gonna spend 80 billion dollars with Military Companies that have been out of work for a decade. Bodies for Dollars. You guys talking about world problems are evil doers.

Im joking. Fuck Bush

8/5/2005 5:47:25 AM

-air quotes-

8/5/2005 7:05:36 AM

Quote :

"Some of us don't think that it's any of America's business to mess with other countrys' affairs. "

but by us being in iraq, we are helping out our country's affairs. every war has economic ties, though some people don't want to see that.

8/5/2005 9:06:30 AM

Socks socks, I hate to defend 3rd parties, but I think you are drastically over-simplifying.

What Conservatives think is needed to fix these "issues":

1) Health Care: Tort Reform. Fix the hugh liability costs and the price of health care falls, making it more affordable for all Americans.

2) Global Poverty: Free Trade! Yes, Clinton stole that issue from the conservatives of the day, but that does not change the fact that it was their idea.

3) Environmental Protection: This is the only assertion I think you can defend.
That said, is the environment really something that needs fixing? Do we not already have enough laws on the books protecting the environment? You do realize it is possible to make the nations policies sufficient to complete a given issue. Hell, the vast amount of our environmental laws didn't even come from Congress but from the EPA which can respond, at will, to any new developments in this policy area.

"Got a problem with air and water quality?" Then you are overly obsessive. Our air and water has never been cleaner.
"urban development?" Call your local city council.
"responcible logging?" As the nation with the largest area of forrest on the planet, we are a net importer of lumber. Evidently, we have irresponcibly eliminated logging in too many regions.

8/5/2005 9:18:43 AM

Quote :

"1) Health Care: Many "liberal" academics and politicans have been working on expanding health coverage in the United States. Ideas have ranged from simple reforms (Kerry's plan for government re-imbursement of "catastrophic" medical expenses to lower insurance premimums) to structural changes (single payer systems like Canada or National Insurance schemes). Conservative responce? Health Saving Accounts. brilliant. Whether you think "liberal" ideas are good or not, i don't think you can argue that "conservatives" have given the problem very little thought."

News flash: health care coverage isn't a right... maybe trying to fix the high cost of health care as compared to other nations would be nice. But actual coverage is not a right and it never should be.

8/5/2005 9:30:05 AM

Quote :

"Our air and water has never been cleaner. "

So you dont consider it bad when local officials issue a warning telling trianglers to stay indoors because of noxious air?

8/5/2005 9:31:52 AM

yea lets go back to the days when the air was sweet and pure, but when you could find water to drink, it'd kill you of dysentery or plague

8/5/2005 9:39:26 AM

Quote :

"So you dont consider it bad when local officials issue a warning telling trianglers to stay indoors because of noxious air?"

depends on how true that claim is. If bitching about air conitions that are less than ideal but not actually harmful is what makes the gov't issue said warning, then no, I don't see that as an indicator of bad environmental conditions.

8/5/2005 9:52:38 AM

well, you can sometimes actually see the environmental conditions in the form of smog

8/5/2005 9:54:48 AM

I dont think they would use the emergency broadcast system to "complain".

8/5/2005 9:56:51 AM

If Liberals are winning the war on ideas then why pray tell aren't they winning the elections? You actually win when you can get reforms and ideas passed thru the mainstream and accepted as right courses of action.

if its truly a "war" then the liberals are actually losing b/c they are not in the position to make policy or influence those around them. sure they may be winning on a ground level but wars arent won with skrimishs...its who ever drops the big bomb that wins.

8/5/2005 10:21:26 AM

this thread is just pure fantasy by a liberal fanboy

democrats are a LONG way from developing a coherent national message that incorporates a whole system of well-thought ideas.

8/5/2005 10:30:31 AM

Quote :

"Please note that I am not a modern conservative, so don't play any of those 'Iraq' cards or whatever. I don't think that we should be there either."

So liberals would give billions of dollars in aid to Africa (or should I say most of it goes to the African leaders) but not give Iraqis freedom? Africa is as lost cause. How about we give up on it and put all of our money into Iraq and reconstruction. Do you realize how much faster everythine would get done? And dont give me any of that BS about we cant desert the African people because the liberal thought that we shouldnt be in Iraq basically means we should desert the Iraqi people. Lets face it folks, if Clinton would have invaded Iraq, he would be considered the most humane president in history because the press would do the exact opposite of what its doin' now.

Anyway, if Liberals are winning then tell me how this could be. According to the Center for Political Studies in the University of Michigan, American ideology is broken down like this: males in the US are 44% conservative and 26% liberal. Females are 47% conservative and 32% liberal. White people are 47% conservative and 26% liberal. Black people are 31% conservative, 41% liberal. People with less that high school education are 39% conservative and 39% liberal. With a high school diploma, 43% conservative and 35% liberal. With a bachelor's degree, 48% conservative, 21% liberal. With an advanced degree, 42% conservative, 25% liberal. As you might expect, democrats are 20% conservative and 50% liberal while republicans are 79% conservative, and 6% liberal.

Blacks, people with low education (probably because they dropped out from smoking pot all day) and democrats are the only mainly liberal group in the US.

8/5/2005 10:38:10 AM

VOTE FOR ME OR THE BOOGIEMAN WILL GET U!

8/5/2005 10:38:44 AM

These past 5 years have made it apparent that Americans dont care about coherency

8/5/2005 10:39:45 AM

the gestalt of the republican message has been very coherent, particularly compared to the democratic message.

you're just repeating the tired liberal cliche, "past five years prove americans don't care about <insert positive noun>"

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 10:52 AM. Reason : s]

8/5/2005 10:51:04 AM

americans don't care about anything but cars and tv

8/5/2005 10:53:05 AM

and Steven A. Smith. don't forget the black man.

8/5/2005 10:56:32 AM

yeah...i thought about sports...but i kind of lumped that in with tv, even though they are also live events

8/5/2005 11:02:10 AM

You're absolutely right nerdBoy. Democrats could learn from coherent republican messages like

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."
-GWB

8/5/2005 11:07:45 AM

well that's not exactly a message, just a quote

8/5/2005 11:12:12 AM

Is the War on Ideas something like the War on Drugs? Is the war over when the last idea has been killed?

8/5/2005 11:37:28 AM

The war on ideas is the current media theme of quoting out of context and soundbiting complex issues.

This requires all ideas to be reduced into the following format:

I will state my idea in a simple sentance here.

1)My first supporting point.
2)My second supporting point.
3)Anecdotal evidence as my third point.

Now I shall state a short conclusion.

8/5/2005 11:45:46 AM

people should be required to watch an hour of cspan a week. seriously. it would help people see what actually goes on.

(oh yeah and c-span should be a gov't run non-profit on broadcast tv nationwide)

8/5/2005 11:49:13 AM

Quote :

"2) Global Poverty: Another area where "liberals" seem to be the only ones admitting there's a problem. Admittedly, some of the ideas proposed are bad (fair trade, unconditional debt forgiveness), but folks like economist Jeff Sachs have been developing reasonable suggestions for improving global living standards. Once again, "conservatives" don't seem to care at all."

This is just funny. Your idea that conservatives dont care at all is unsubstantiated bullshit, the christian right evangelicals care especially. And secondly one economist looking at a problem is hardly representative of liberals.

Now lets even assume youre right and conservatives dont care and liberals do, if conservatives advance free trade and liberals advance bullshit protectionism then whether they mean to or not conservatives are still doing more to raise global living standards.

And lastly Im pretty sure war of ideas is meant to convey a grander ideological confrontation and not specific issue policy.

8/5/2005 12:21:48 PM

all we do with "free trade" is take advantage of cheap labor for a few years until the people demand more money then we duck out and pursue "free trade" somewhere else. then we leave the previous trade partner for a country with cheaper labor (see: NAFTA -> CAFTA)

8/5/2005 12:33:14 PM

Quote :

"c-span should be a gov't run non-profit on broadcast tv nationwide"

Waaa!?!? Why the hell should the government be in charge of monitoring the government!?!?

sarijoul, so you do recognize that after free trading with America, the people are no longer "cheap labor" because they are no longer desperate for work, thus our free trade has alleviated their suffering. Good for us!

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ^]

8/5/2005 12:55:13 PM

i don't think the gov't should be in charge of "monitoring the gov't". i think a camera sitting in the senate and house chambers should be available to everyone. that's all. no analysis. just a camera sitting there with captions saying what bills are being discussed or voted on or whatever. the gov't has websites that do similar things.

when we pull our companies out for cheaper labor elsewhere it just leaves people without jobs again. there are always going to be poor people. and there will always be rich people to prey on them. i don't know of any decent way of solving this problem. i guess the republican way is to prey on them. i guess that's good for this country. at least in the short term.

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 1:00 PM. Reason : second part]

8/5/2005 12:58:00 PM

Thats an excellent idea....unless youre a member of the majority party.

8/5/2005 12:58:29 PM

LoneSnark,

I wouldn't call "free trade" a conservative or a liberal idea, since people from both sides have embraced it, just as people on both sides have embraced protectionism. Ever ask Pat Buchanan what he thinks on free trade? Does that make him a liberal? Ever ask Paul Krugman? Is he a conservative? And there is more we could be doing to end global poverty than just lowering our tariffs, what about lowering our farm subsidies? what about using conditional aid to encourage institutional reform? The fact that the best you can come up with is lowering tariffs shows the drought of "conservative" ideas on the subject.

Also, I have never seen any statistical analysis indicating that reforming Torts would signifigantly help to provide health coverage to the millions currently without insurance. How many more people will be able to afford health care once such reforms are passed?You're also assuming Tort reform is a "conservative" issue, which it isn't. Liberals have been making their own proposals for how to address the problem (for example they've proposed structural reforms such as a "health court", please see our last discussion on torts for the link). You should realize that tort reform is only part of the solution. Of course, most conservatives don't and that's exactly why they are losing the war of ideas.

And yes, we do have a number of laws on the books, but that doesn't mean the problem is fixed. It doesn't even mean the laws will be enforced in the spirit they were enacted (check out the Bush admin).

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 1:11 PM. Reason : Title Correction: War OF Ideas.]

8/5/2005 1:09:11 PM

Quote :

"when we pull our companies out for cheaper labor elsewhere it just leaves people without jobs again"

Wait, so, if the people have no other job oportunities, then why are they demanding higher wages? If they are destitute without the jobs our companies provide, then the supply of labor would be constant. As such, our companies should never leave, perpetually taking advantage of the cheap wages.

8/5/2005 1:09:48 PM

they may be winning the war on ideas, but they're driving this country down the drain

8/5/2005 1:10:22 PM

only if "they're" refers to everyone

sweet jesus, how can you even blame one side

it's just idiotic

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2005 1:15:28 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't call "free trade" a conservative or a liberal idea"

In the house 80% of republicans voted for CAFTA and only 7% of democrats did.

Sure there is some crossover with the DLC and economists but thats about it.

8/5/2005 1:19:46 PM

^^^yeah, its not like the conservatives have the majority power or anything.

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 1:20 PM. Reason : df]

8/5/2005 1:19:53 PM

^ because liberals are the ones in power

Clear5, "one person does not a movement make, OMG!" They're called examples. I could give you a list of everysingle person I know that has a good idea on povery reduction, like Bono , and I could list even more of people i don't agree with, but I don't think that's very productive. Jeff Sachs is just an example of a liberal working on the issue.

But you're right, evangelicals do seem to care about global poverty and they have been more than willing to volunteer to help out folks in places like Africa and Latin America. But there are two problems with that argument. 1) Unless you want to claim that all evangelicals are "conservaitve", then you're going to have a hard time convincing me that I should equate evangelical (an a political religous affiliation) with conservative (a political belief system whose basic tenants seem to oppose to the government helping its own citizens let alone foreigners). 2) This is a disucssion on the war of IDEAS. And I have yet to see an avowed conservative offer solutions to the problems.

8/5/2005 1:23:19 PM

Quote :

"Socks``: Liberals Are Winning The War On Ideas"

Agreed. When they start winning The War Of Ideas I'll start acting worried.

8/5/2005 1:28:47 PM

Quote :

"In the house 80% of republicans voted for CAFTA and only 7% of democrats did. Sure there is some crossover with the DLC and economists but thats about it. "

-Clear5

Here's some flaws with that argument:

1) It is possible to vote against CAFTA and still support free trade (for example, you might believe that it doesn't do enough to help rellocate displaced workers).

2) Your unsourced stat still shows 1/5 of Republicans opposing it, a pretty signifigant number if you ask me. If your point is that thoughts are mixed inside parties, then I agree.

3) The most important point: You're missing the whole damn point. The War of Ideas isn't about votes. There are strains of conservaitve thought that support and oppose free trade, just as there are strains among liberals. A poll doesn't really mean much.

You can think of it another way. The first signifigant argument for free trade was proposed by Adam Smith, who probably wouldn't fit in any political stereotype today (not even libertarian). He supported free trade, but he also supported labor unions and public education among other things. Of course, it isn't fair to try to fit Smith into our time since he faced different concerns in a different time, but I hope you see my meaning.

8/5/2005 1:32:21 PM

TGD, already corrected. at least try to be original.

8/5/2005 1:33:38 PM

^
That would actually require wasting the time to read the thread. I had to stop after your 1st post.

On a side note, the correction wasn't sufficiently conspicuous for my tastes, so I decided to note it explicitly on its own for anyone else thinking the same thing. Consider it a PSA

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 1:56 PM. Reason : ---]

8/5/2005 1:54:22 PM

Quote :

" This is a disucssion on the war of IDEAS. And I have yet to see an avowed conservative offer solutions to the problems"

that's because you stick your fingers in your ears and scream about mispronunciations whenever you feel threatened by conservative thought

8/5/2005 1:58:53 PM

Sadly, liberals aren't winning anything else.

8/5/2005 2:09:48 PM

Quote :

"But you're right, evangelicals do seem to care about global poverty and they have been more than willing to volunteer to help out folks in places like Africa and Latin America. But there are two problems with that argument. 1) Unless you want to claim that all evangelicals are "conservaitve", then you're going to have a hard time convincing me that I should equate evangelical (an a political religous affiliation) with conservative (a political belief system whose basic tenants seem to oppose to the government helping its own citizens let alone foreigners). 2) This is a disucssion on the war of IDEAS. And I have yet to see an avowed conservative offer solutions to the problems."

Certainly not all evangelicals are "conservative", but easily a majority, if not a large bulk, tend to be right of center in particular because of their social beliefs. Evangelical Christians are probably one of the strongest political movers when it comes to battling poverty at the grass roots level. However, they are not very visible at the national level because the entire abortion issue tends to deflect media attention away from it.

To expand further, conservative Evangelical Christians are major players in areas that would traditionally be viewed as "liberal" issues such as fighting for human rights. The most vocal advocate for action on the genocide in Darfur is Senator Brownback of Kansas, the unofficial spokesperson in the Senate for the Christian Right. At the grassroots level, they fight hard on issues ranging from sex slave trafficking to debt relief to battling poverty to religious freedom. Again, they've been active in these issues for years, it's just that they only get attention for their actions on other social issues such as abortion.

Even El Presidente has publically pledged millions for battling AIDS and fighting poverty in Africa. Whether or not the money gets there is another story (this is not a conservative vs. liberal issue but just one of governments in general), but he's offered more on the table than many more "liberal" voices or his predecessors. You also have people like the late Senator Jesse Helms, the poster child of conservatives, who made a public call and push for third world debt relief. I bring these people up not as obscure references but as very large players in the "conservative" movement.

What I want to ask you Socks`` is what you define as "conservative" and "liberal". You're simply twisting and changing them for the convenience of your argument to try demonize one label while uplifting the other. Are you referring to conservatives as the minimal government types or conservatives as the social movement? Both? Or are they only conservative when people in either of those camps do something you don't agree with (and then try and frame them as "liberals" when they do something you like)?

8/5/2005 2:35:38 PM

Quote :

"To expand further, conservative Evangelical Christians are major players in areas that would traditionally be viewed as "liberal" issues such as fighting for human rights. The most vocal advocate for action on the genocide in Darfur is Senator Brownback of Kansas, the unofficial spokesperson in the Senate for the Christian Right. At the grassroots level, they fight hard on issues ranging from sex slave trafficking to debt relief to battling poverty to religious freedom. Again, they've been active in these issues for years, it's just that they only get attention for their actions on other social issues such as abortion."

thanks to the new media loosening the MSLM's hold on information flow, more and more people are beginning to understand how big of a player the evangelical movement is in battling poverty and promoting human rights issues

8/5/2005 2:43:54 PM

While very few Republicans are Small Government Republicans, I think this small group has the best idea which, as a matter of happenstance is the only idea which will work: DO NOTHING.

In fact, stop doing what your doing. We have sacrificed human liberty for security and received neither.

Of course, Socks doesn't consider that an idea because he cannot see the government program it would require.

Back on the topic at hand, however, the American people as a whole no longer poll in favor of radical environmental policy. As such, when GWB lets environmental protections slide a bit, the average person didn't mind because they no longer believe it affects them. Which people still die and develop lung disease from pollution, the percentage of the population that knows somewhat that has suffered from it is tiny compared to what it used to be. City water is clean nowadays, and far more of us receive city water. Our children now attend suburban schools, far away from the smog choked inner cities. Not to mention the radical drop in pollution emissions from industrial activity (seeing as it has all be exported).

So, the liberal assault that "our environment is crappy and must be fixed" is no longer justified in our day to day lives.

8/5/2005 3:11:55 PM

Quote :

"To expand further, conservative Evangelical Christians are major players in areas that would traditionally be viewed as "liberal" issues such as fighting for human rights. The most vocal advocate for action on the genocide in Darfur is Senator Brownback of Kansas, the unofficial spokesperson in the Senate for the Christian Right. At the grassroots level, they fight hard on issues ranging from sex slave trafficking to debt relief to battling poverty to religious freedom. Again, they've been active in these issues for years, it's just that they only get attention for their actions on other social issues such as abortion. "

-RedGuard
I already conceded that evangelicals do care about these issues and they are very active, but frankly their involvement boils down to volunteering and basic charity funds. Like I said before, this is a discussion about ideas and i have never seen a conservative explaination for why some areas are so poor and what we can do about about it. I never mentioned sex trafficing or any of that other stuff so please stay on topic. If you're gonna bitch, bitch about what I say.

As far as how I define "conservative", I am really just sticking to people who claim to be conservatives. I allow them to do the labelling for me.

8/5/2005 3:16:26 PM

Quote :

"1) Health Care: Tort Reform. Fix the hugh liability costs and the price of health care falls, making it more affordable for all Americans."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


*Breathe*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Liability costs have absofuckinglutely nothing at all to do with the high cost of medicine. 1% of the cost is there by court cases, but the other 99% is there because of 1) inadequate healthcare 2) the insurance companies playing the stock market and actually not have the money they promised 3) Greed by the insurance companies and doctors.

8/5/2005 3:49:37 PM