NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,686064,00.html
I read this article already. It's not just the mindless hillbilly conservatism most (but not all) liberals and Europeans love assigning us. Rather, it is a mix of right-wng Christians, liberatarians, and neo cons, though liberatarians seem to be the largest. What's even funnier in this article is that conservatives use their own rhetoric against them. For example, during Black History month, a Republican group at Ithaca College (I think) brought in a black liberatarian speaker. Despite funding other blacks, the school refused to fund this guy to speak. Thus, the school was accused of rascism against thought. We conservatives are living large at the Ivory Towers, and we can by playing the faculties' game: accuse everyone of discrimination.

bump

bump

Anything can be considered "racist" now a days. If you call someone black, it's racist. It's African-American. But for white people, do you have to say French-American or German-American? Not really. I don't know, I'm just kinda bored right now... :rolleyes:

You're not allowed to bump threads.

You're not allowed to bump threads.
Oh, sorry. New rule here?

They are not real conservatives, But Liberals saying they are.

They are not real conservatives, But Liberals saying they are.
I feel they are. The dominant form of conservatism in the Republican party now is neoconservatism, but it won't always be like that. In the eighties and nineties, it was a battle between libertarians and Christian fundementalists. Before that, those dominating the Republican party were what could be called today's liberals. The good news is that we were still right of the Democrats.

I found out a little factoid about the right, btw. You know how we are called "conservatives" in the US, right? That's because in the 19th century, we were called "liberals", and the modern liberals were "conservatives". The names flipped when the left was trying to push for the older economic systems. More historically accurate, France calls there "conservatives" the neo-liberals.

At least they're not conservative on social issues. I can stand free-market capitalists when they're not trying to crush civil liberties.

At least they're not conservative on social issues. I can stand free-market capitalists when they're not trying to crush civil liberties.
I think they're out there, however. Anyhow, I don't think the online version had the statistics that was in the magazine article. In 1992, 63% of undergrads supported abortion rights. That number is 55% today. There's even changes in student's moral behavior. 22% of freshmen say they don't party, compared to 13% in 1987.

Anything can be considered "racist" now a days. If you call someone black, it's racist.

Where the hell do you live?

Where the hell do you live?
He presumably lives in some kind of PC police state.

He presumably lives in some kind of PC police state.
Or in California. They still think that this is the sixties.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When political alliances turn unprofitable, party splits may occur. Bush has been very good to certain key interest groups who support him, but has left others in the cold. Dick Cheny's recent announcement against the President's policy on Gay marriage shows that they are struggling to keep everyone in the party line.

Many, many people don't seem to realize that the modern Republican party is made up of a coalition of issue-based factions with few real ties to each other. Some are pro-small business, others are pro-corperate, some strongly push "values" issues, others concern themselves almost entirely with Defense budgets. To assume that all Republicans are pro-guns, pro-god in government, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-anti-trust, and anti-taxes; is just absurd.

People pick the issues that are close to them, and usually go along with the party line otherwise out of sheer convenience. Some states have greater proportions of "party line" voters who vote all one party on any ballot; some states have strong traditions of non-partisan behavior, those who refuse to let one D or R detirmine their vote.

Is it hopeless optimism on my part to hope for a strong backlash against blind partisanship in the US after this election? That people will finally get fed up with backing a canidate or a party to the hilt without any conception of what they are actually doing? Both parties produce wonderful and horrible canidates for positions in local, state, and federal government; why not pick the best of the lot without regard for one letter? If a "D" or a "R" comes out in favor of an issue you are in favor of, would you cross party lines to vote for them?

If you say "no"...ask yourself why and think long and hard about it.

Time magazine thinks that libertarians are a variety of conservatives? I'm a libertarian, and I'm here to tell you that the word "libertarian" is just an euphemism for anarchist. Just as it is considered to be rude to call a woman a "witch", is is considered to be inappropiate by some to call people "anarchists". And so ,instead of saying "witchcraft", we call it "wicca". And ,instead of saying anarcho-capitalism, we call it libertarianism. Here are some links that I think you'll like to checkout which should help to inform you about what libertarianism is all about. www.libertarianrock.com, www. theadvocates.org, www.anarchism.net, and www.LP.org

What I find so difficult to swallow is the absolutely biased reporting that went into this article. TIME constantly advertises itself as a magazine for in-depth world articles and this is one of the most biased, sycophantic, partisan bits of reporting I think I've ever seen come out of a 'reputable' mainstream news-site (and I'm including Fox in this).
I mean you'd come away with the conclusion that nearly every student in America is hugely conservative and becoming more so. It's written as if this is a really good thing - so much for objective reporting.
BTW libertainrocks.com? I don't think so. NO political ideology 'rocks'. It's as bad as Christain 'rock'.

And so ,instead of saying "witchcraft", we call it "wicca".

a hahaha

its rude to any real "witch" to call them wicca

along with the increase in rightwingedness that's happened on campuses, you also have in recent years had an increase in anarchist and other libertarian socialist type ideas there too. part of this is a general trend towards more libertarian beliefs, especially among young people, that's been going on for quite some time - we're winning battles in the social revolution. but also their is just the alienating and stale dynamic of the 'college liberal' scene which is stuck in identity politics and the democratic party line.

as for the increase in cultural conservatives on campus, i blame the erosion of the concept of a liberal arts education. cultural conservativism is hard pressed to make it through a couple of courses of religions studies, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, etc. intact.

Time magazine thinks that libertarians are a variety of conservatives? I'm a libertarian, and I'm here to tell you that the word "libertarian" is just an euphemism for anarchist. Just as it is considered to be rude to call a woman a "witch", is is considered to be inappropiate by some to call people "anarchists". And so ,instead of saying "witchcraft", we call it "wicca". And ,instead of saying anarcho-capitalism, we call it libertarianism. Here are some links that I think you'll like to checkout which should help to inform you about what libertarianism is all about. www.libertarianrock.com, www. theadvocates.org, www.anarchism.net, and www.LP.org
I know of quite a few libertarians that disagree with you. You are more of an extreme libertarian. The vast majority believe in the existence of the state, but except in issues of defense and law enforcement, it shouldn't play a role.
And btw, libertarianism is considered by some to be a branch of conservatism because most libertarians have been Republicans since Ronald Reagan. Now they've sprinkled themselves everywhere.

as for the increase in cultural conservatives on campus, i blame the erosion of the concept of a liberal arts education. cultural conservativism is hard pressed to make it through a couple of courses of religions studies, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, etc. intact.
This isn't exactly an increase in the cultural conservatism that liberals have nightmares about. It is just about personal values, not exactly their feeling on collective values.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When political alliances turn unprofitable, party splits may occur. Bush has been very good to certain key interest groups who support him, but has left others in the cold. Dick Cheny's recent announcement against the President's policy on Gay marriage shows that they are struggling to keep everyone in the party line.

Many, many people don't seem to realize that the modern Republican party is made up of a coalition of issue-based factions with few real ties to each other. Some are pro-small business, others are pro-corperate, some strongly push "values" issues, others concern themselves almost entirely with Defense budgets. To assume that all Republicans are pro-guns, pro-god in government, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-anti-trust, and anti-taxes; is just absurd.

People pick the issues that are close to them, and usually go along with the party line otherwise out of sheer convenience. Some states have greater proportions of "party line" voters who vote all one party on any ballot; some states have strong traditions of non-partisan behavior, those who refuse to let one D or R detirmine their vote.

Is it hopeless optimism on my part to hope for a strong backlash against blind partisanship in the US after this election? That people will finally get fed up with backing a canidate or a party to the hilt without any conception of what they are actually doing? Both parties produce wonderful and horrible canidates for positions in local, state, and federal government; why not pick the best of the lot without regard for one letter? If a "D" or a "R" comes out in favor of an issue you are in favor of, would you cross party lines to vote for them?

If you say "no"...ask yourself why and think long and hard about it.
However, they tend to be farther right than most Democrats.

Yeah, I guess I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist. You see, the beliefs of the Libertarian party are a combination of classical liberalism and anarcho-capitalism. Some like your friends are classical liberals, while others like myself are anarcho-capitalists. I will be voting for Michael Badnarik for President anyway. www.badnarik.org

Yeah, I guess I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist. You see, the beliefs of the Libertarian party are a combination of classical liberalism and anarcho-capitalism. Some like your friends are classical liberals, while others like myself are anarcho-capitalists. I will be voting for Michael Badnarik for President anyway. www.badnarik.org
In that sense, the libertarian party is divided as to how libertarian it wants to be. Most of the ones that want a government around as a nightwatchman are grouped with the rest of the conservatives. As has been pointed out, we're a diverse bunch, but we somehow work together. It turns into small arguements here and there, but since the seventies, the Republican party has had no major divisions.
The Democrats are also diverse, having labor unions, most attorneys, many (but not all) poorer small-town residents, the black churchgoers, socialists, and just those that like government handouts. We're both diverse bunches.

a hahaha

its rude to any real "witch" to call them wicca
new one on me....wicca is the belief and was never a term for a witch

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When political alliances turn unprofitable, party splits may occur. Bush has been very good to certain key interest groups who support him, but has left others in the cold. Dick Cheny's recent announcement against the President's policy on Gay marriage shows that they are struggling to keep everyone in the party line.

Many, many people don't seem to realize that the modern Republican party is made up of a coalition of issue-based factions with few real ties to each other. Some are pro-small business, others are pro-corperate, some strongly push "values" issues, others concern themselves almost entirely with Defense budgets. To assume that all Republicans are pro-guns, pro-god in government, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-anti-trust, and anti-taxes; is just absurd.

People pick the issues that are close to them, and usually go along with the party line otherwise out of sheer convenience. Some states have greater proportions of "party line" voters who vote all one party on any ballot; some states have strong traditions of non-partisan behavior, those who refuse to let one D or R detirmine their vote.

Is it hopeless optimism on my part to hope for a strong backlash against blind partisanship in the US after this election? That people will finally get fed up with backing a canidate or a party to the hilt without any conception of what they are actually doing? Both parties produce wonderful and horrible canidates for positions in local, state, and federal government; why not pick the best of the lot without regard for one letter? If a "D" or a "R" comes out in favor of an issue you are in favor of, would you cross party lines to vote for them?

If you say "no"...ask yourself why and think long and hard about it.


::Average American:: But it's so much easier to vote for the one my party tells me too! Or not even vote at all!

This isn't exactly an increase in the cultural conservatism that liberals have nightmares about. It is just about personal values, not exactly their feeling on collective values.

You're wasting your breath; he is not addressing the issues you raised. His post was his veiled way of saying that cultural conservatives are ignorant and closed-minded.

[B]ut also their [sic] is just the alienating and stale dynamic of the 'college liberal' scene which is stuck in identity politics and the democratic party line.

a.k.a., the professors and university administrators

You're wasting your breath; he is not addressing the issues you raised. His post was his veiled way of saying that cultural conservatives are ignorant and closed-minded.
I always knew that about him. But I find it, oddly enough, enjoyable to argue with those that I know I'll never win over.