Please let me first ask you to suspend your bias. I'm sure you all have an opinion on what my political leanings are but I'm trying to look at this objectively. It might seemed a bit rushed because I'm just taking a quick break from studying. I'll also try to keep my criticisms to a minimum and make them purposeful.

Conservatism is simply the belief that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think this is a basic philosophy that pretty much everyone can agree on. If something is working for us, there is absolutely no reason to go in and tinker with it without fully understanding the consequences. It's based in rationality and the desire to maintain stability... both of which are noble virtues. But when does this desire to maintain the status quo begin to work against society? It seems as if the conservatism of today, while still based on the desire for prosperity, is hindering our growth by remaining stuck in the past. Basically saying... "well, it looks broke, but it's worked in the past so it'll just fix itself." And SOME of these things are probably self-correcting.

But I think the majority of Americans feel we're losing ground with the rest of the world. I think there are very few self-hating Americans that wish to see us fall from power. 99% of the country wants to see us remain as the greatest country on the planet and provide useful and positive leadership. I'm not talking about blind nationalism here, I'm talking about the will to do good in the world, which is one of the few well articulated policies the Bush administration has had over the past 8 years. The only thing that seperates us are our individual approaches to what we think is the best course of action.

This is where liberalism comes in. Now, I'm not trying to say liberalism is good and conservatism is bad. I'm saying it's the balance between the two that creates the wonderful system he have today. It's been that way since the country began. The radicals of the Northeast were sick of the King of England taxing them into oblivion. The conservative southern and mid-Atlantic states were somewhat happier because they had cheap labor and were doing fine. There was certainly a significant power struggle between the liberals who desired independence and the conservatives who desired the status quo. Eventually the liberals won out and we gained out Independence (something I would hope every American treasures). Without the liberal desire to gain freedom though, our country would atleast be a couple of decades younger. This was a wise move in the eyes of all Americans... and it was a very liberal action.

Liberalism is the desire for change. Perhaps that's why Obama's campaign focused so heavily on that word. Americans feel we're heading in the wrong direction and it felt good to simply have a politician acknowledge that. I'm sure some Americans feel we're on a fine path, but the majority do not and that's why we saw what happened in these past 2 elections. But there's also a sad thing about all this change. Almost all of the Democrats who got elected were elected on the platform of "I'm not a Republican." And by and large it worked. This was done without articulating or enacting any major policy. It was done simply by admitting to the public that there is a problem in the way the country is governed. That was something that had been lacking in the years of Republican leadership, where they're philosophy seemed to be, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broke, sure as hell don't talk about it." It works for awhile until the problems mount up.

How are the Democrats going to fix it? I have no idea. But they have Step One down... and that's to first admit there is a problem. It's very much a good thing that the Democrats don't have a supermajority, because that's never a good thing. Too much change causes social upheaval and instability. Instability causes problems which create more problems. But we're now on the way to at least discussing the problems and hopefully that will lead to some solutions. A healthy dose of liberal political activism is exactly what this country needed because the problems were becoming overwhelming. A conservative stopgap had been placed on government for nearly a decade. Corruption ran rampant. The economy imploded. Change was exactly what we needed.

But before you claim I'm singing the praises of liberalism, realize that we're all liberal to some extent. By definition of the word anyway, not the label that's been placed on certain policy positions. Anyone who wishes to change the status quo is liberal. The Fair Tax is an extremely liberal position. Attempting to outlaw abortion is a liberal action. Downsizing government could be considered liberal because it's a change although it's traditionally considered conservative. People who spout off against liberals need to realize that everyone is liberal to some extent. And that's goes for liberals too. Everyone is conservative to some extent. Almost everyone has something about the current system that they're content with and they're therefore taking a conservative stance on that issue.

The one thing that we all have in common though is that we desire the best for our country. We need to work together to achieve solutions for the greater good. The first step is to identify a problem. After that, dialogue needs to take place on what solution is ideal. Total agreeance will likely not happen, but merely holding talks is a step in the right direction. Hopefully we can achieve this over the near future. It looks like it's already taking hold. Obama has yet to announce any significant policy moves he will make when he takes office next month, but he's surrounding himself with people that will provide good insight and a range of solutions to different problems. The Republican senator from TN recently made a name for himself by creating the three point plan for the auto bailout. Unfortunately, it didn't pass because the UAW is stupid, but at least we're getting somewhere. We're realizing problems now and we're trying to fix them.

Conservatism by itself will only lead to losing touch with the present. On the other hand, liberalism by itself will lead to perpetual anarchy as instability in society tears it apart. It's the combination of the two that creates strength. It's a symbiotic relationship not without ups and downs, but it's relatively effective. Yin and Yang. But there needs to be open-mindedness at all times. If there isn't a problem, there's no reason to go in trying to solve something that doesn't need a solution. But if there is a problem, sitting on our hands will do no good. Action must be taken. And for that, I welcome the liberal government that will dominate the next few years. When the USA has dug itself out the hole we're in, I will welcome the conservative government aimed at maintaining stability. We're worse off without both.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 7:05 AM. Reason : grammar]

12/15/2008 6:57:28 AM

Quote :

"Conservatism is simply the belief that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Bullshit. There is no need to read anything else you wrote.

12/15/2008 7:42:38 AM

burro is right on this one... at least kind of.

You fucked up the premise. While many conservatives would agree that if something isn't broke, it does not need to be fixed, that isn't what the philosophy boils down to at all.

12/15/2008 7:45:52 AM

You're right, current conservatism falls on crazy libertarian thinking and bullshit religious morals.

What's the problem here?

Libertarians wanna live in the woods with their guns and kill 'young'uns' who tresspass while christians who are supposed to be helping the poor and turning the other cheek are too busy crusading against ideologies that they don't agree with?

What do you get with that mix? A group of self-hating people who fight for the personal freedom to fuck up others personal freedoms.

12/15/2008 8:52:56 AM

I hope you didn't write this.

Quote :

"Liberalism is the desire for change"

No it isn't. Learn some history. Liberalism is about freedom and individuality. You are somewhat right, in that Conservatism is retaining what is. But you can be a liberal and be a conservative. Traditionally, Republicans have been the "liberal" party in the true meaning of the word, only in the past 20 years or so have the become the social conservative party. So called "Liberals" in this country don't embrace liberalism, they are more socialist/collectivist/pluralist whatever you want to call them.

So please, before you talk about liberalism, know what you are talking about.

Start with wiki, then move on to better sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Etymology_and_historical_usage

12/15/2008 8:53:42 AM

Quote :

"Libertarians wanna live in the woods with their guns and kill 'young'uns' who tresspass "

Ummm, not quite.

Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, smaller and more localized governance, civil liberties and fiscal restraint. It's an ideology, and like all ideologies, blindly adhering to it is a mistake. But the idea that we have too many bloated social programs, too much bureaucratic red tape, and too complex a tax code is hardly a radical one. Just because there are a couple of crazies aligned with the group doesn't make them all crazy.


[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 11:32 AM. Reason : 2]

12/15/2008 11:27:24 AM

I think we should take the original poster's name literally on this one.

12/15/2008 1:33:04 PM

Liberalism: A political philosophy that favors the disposition to change or reform what is established, as in religion or politics; specific principles and practices developed by advocates of political change; a theory advocating individual freedom from governmental control and a market which is self-regulating; the gold standard.

Conservatism: A political philosophy that favors maintaining limited government involvement with respect to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs; believes moral objectivism exists and should be adhered to, promotes the preservation of what is established and opposes innovation or change. Typically calls for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs.

Most definitions will differ slightly but I find these to be sufficient summaries.

12/15/2008 1:58:27 PM

I don't know if you got these from some other source or if you made them up, but they seem to prove me correct.

Quote :

"Liberalism: A political philosophy that favors the disposition to change or reform what is established, as in religion or politics; specific principles and practices developed by advocates of political change; a theory advocating individual freedom from governmental control and a market which is self-regulating; the gold standard. Conservatism: A political philosophy that favors maintaining limited government involvement with respect to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs; believes moral objectivism exists and should be adhered to, promotes the preservation of what is established and opposes innovation or change. Typically calls for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs. "

I think the problem with people not knowing what each word actually represents is the fact that both sides have just been using them as negative labels for the other side.

Also Ytsejam, that link you gave me only talked about pre-1800 etymology. True liberalism didn't really develop until the mid-1800s when all those Central European countries were having revolutions every other week.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 3:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2008 2:56:12 PM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism

Yea, YOU know what the terms mean.

Liberalism isn't an ideology of change. It's an ideology of, get this, liberty. Hence, you know, the term having the same root. Crazy I know.

Obviously, since the enlightenment and the advent of liberalism, it has been associated with change. But that is because they were trying to change the old system, which wasn't align to liberal thought.

Change isn't a political ideology.

Quote :

"Also Ytsejam, that link you gave me only talked about pre-1800 etymology. True liberalism didn't really develop until the mid-1800s when all those Central European countries were having revolutions every other week."

wtf? Just no. Hell, ask any European what liberalism is and they will tell you the same thing that I would. You're either stoned or a fucking moron.

[Edited on December 15, 2008 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2008 3:11:59 PM

Quote :

"Libertarians wanna live in the woods with their guns and kill 'young'uns' who tresspass while christians who are supposed to be helping the poor and turning the other cheek are too busy crusading against ideologies that they don't agree with?"

more like:

Many christians live in the woods with their guns and kill 'young'uns' who tresspass while they are supposed to be helping the poor and turning the other cheek, and are too busy crusading against ideologies that they don't agree with-

AMIRITE?

12/15/2008 3:21:18 PM

Liberalism is definitely a philosophy of freedom, but since change is often the catalyst to acheiving said freedom, the two are often meshed together as one. Same deal with Conservatism, which is a philosophy of stability, but is often meshed together with the catalyst of keeping the status quo. Depending on the society in which you live, the catalysts for change and status quo may be completely different from another culture.

12/15/2008 3:39:11 PM

Stimwalt gets what I'm going for.

12/15/2008 4:12:46 PM

Look, "conservatism" and "liberalism" absolutely DO have a meaning of how the status quo drives your preferred policies, but that isn't the context in which they're mostly used nowadays...so in a way, all of you are both right and wrong.

Quote :

"You're right, current conservatism falls on crazy libertarian thinking and bullshit religious morals. What's the problem here? Libertarians wanna live in the woods with their guns and kill 'young'uns' who tresspass "

1. It doesn't appear to me that the libertarian wing of the GOP is really the dominating force, or even one of two co-dominating forces.

2. That is not even remotely close to what libertarianism is, other than maybe some fucking Timothy McVeigh types who live in a militia compound and identify themselves with libertarian principles.

12/15/2008 5:12:05 PM

imstoned is obviously retarded

12/15/2008 5:35:11 PM

Wow you really tore my argument to shreds.

12/15/2008 5:46:28 PM

my brain hurt from reading everything you vomited up

12/15/2008 6:38:03 PM

Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhh... I see now.

12/15/2008 6:40:52 PM

When liberals fight for individual rights in social causes...I applaud.

When conservatives fight for individual rights in economic causes... I applaud.

12/16/2008 12:44:49 AM

Obama and McCain both focused on change because of the mess that this country is in, it had nothing to do with being "liberal" or "conservative". From what I've observed, the only conservatives who disagree that change is necessary right now are the religious right, who go to church and are told that criticizing Bush will buy you a ticket to hell. It's not up to democrats or republicans to fix the mess we are in, both sides need to work together or else we will not get anywhere. ...and I don't think the platform was so much "I'm not a republican" as "I'm not a neo-con"

12/16/2008 10:58:49 AM