NationStates Jolt Archive

When the Clinton Adminstration failed and faultered, and with the world gripped by fear, the conservatives secured the White House, maintained governmentin Australia and changed policy in England. The ideals of the 90s fell by the wayside and the plebes allowed the gradual reforms of nearly 50 years to be undo in just 4.

But with the US congress securely back in Democrat hands, the Australian Liberal Party in serious trouble and Tony Blair being forced out by left-wing factions of Labor, I predict a new age of Liberal reform.

The fears of the past are behind us and we can finally see the forrest for the trees. Our liberties have been stripped and the reasons are fallacies; we must now realise thatin order to preserve the ideals that are our nation, we must oppose those who lead it.

There is a new generation who is angry that our forefathers allowed greenhouse gases to choke the planet, civil liberties to be aroded, the public to be mislead, religion to replace reason and freedom to give way to fear.

This generation is angry and vocal, this generation will rise up with the power of the vote and the might of people and they will demand their right to justice. This generation will rise up over their parents and call for the values that they (their parents) once stould for to be redoubled through the houses of parliament and halls of justice.

Watch out conservatives, your days are numbered. The Liberal are waiting in the wings and have the numbers to restore power to the people and the values of liberal-democracy to all the western-world.

You sound a bit too optimistic

When the Clinton Adminstration failed and faultered, and with the world gripped by fear, the conservatives secured the White House, maintained governmentin Australia and changed policy in England. The ideals of the 90s fell by the wayside and the plebes allowed the gradual reforms of nearly 50 years to be undo in just 4.

But with the US congress securely back in Democrat hands, the Australian Liberal Party in serious trouble and Tony Blair being forced out by left-wing factions of Labor, I predict a new age of Liberal reform.

The fears of the past are behind us and we can finally see the forrest for the trees. Our liberties have been stripped and the reasons are fallacies; we must now realise thatin order to preserve the ideals that are our nation, we must oppose those who lead it.

There is a new generation who is angry that our forefathers allowed greenhouse gases to choke the planet, civil liberties to be aroded, the public to be mislead, religion to replace reason and freedom to give way to fear.

This generation is angry and vocal, this generation will rise up with the power of the vote and the might of people and they will demand their right to justice. This generation will rise up over their parents and call for the values that they (their parents) once stould for to be redoubled through the houses of parliament and halls of justice.

Watch out conservatives, your days are numbered. The Liberal are waiting in the wings and have the numbers to restore power to the people and the values of liberal-democracy to all the western-world.



...

I baked muffins.

:)

You sound a bit too optimistic

just a little bit...but right overall.

Replacing one path to authoritarianism with another...

Sad thing is, it works to prevent any progress toward the eventual end of the US Republic... or maybe the end of the freedom there.

When the Clinton Adminstration failed and faultered, and with the world gripped by fear, the conservatives secured the White House, maintained governmentin Australia and changed policy in England. The ideals of the 90s fell by the wayside and the plebes allowed the gradual reforms of nearly 50 years to be undo in just 4.

But with the US congress securely back in Democrat hands, the Australian Liberal Party in serious trouble and Tony Blair being forced out by left-wing factions of Labor, I predict a new age of Liberal reform.

The fears of the past are behind us and we can finally see the forrest for the trees. Our liberties have been stripped and the reasons are fallacies; we must now realise thatin order to preserve the ideals that are our nation, we must oppose those who lead it.

There is a new generation who is angry that our forefathers allowed greenhouse gases to choke the planet, civil liberties to be aroded, the public to be mislead, religion to replace reason and freedom to give way to fear.

This generation is angry and vocal, this generation will rise up with the power of the vote and the might of people and they will demand their right to justice. This generation will rise up over their parents and call for the values that they (their parents) once stould for to be redoubled through the houses of parliament and halls of justice.

Watch out conservatives, your days are numbered. The Liberal are waiting in the wings and have the numbers to restore power to the people and the values of liberal-democracy to all the western-world.

Someone's been hitting the bottle a little too hard.:D

open a window...or two

...

I baked muffins.

:)

Can I have one please?

open a window...or two


I got a fan, would that help?

not until kaczynski is kicked of his throne.

I got a fan, would that help?

what do the settings go up too?

You sound a bit too optimistic

I agree. But it would be nice to have the Labour Party back in power in Australia :(.

just a little bit...but right overall.
Agreed.

When the Clinton Adminstration failed and faultered, and with the world gripped by fear, the conservatives secured the White House, maintained governmentin Australia and changed policy in England. The ideals of the 90s fell by the wayside and the plebes allowed the gradual reforms of nearly 50 years to be undo in just 4.

But with the US congress securely back in Democrat hands, the Australian Liberal Party in serious trouble and Tony Blair being forced out by left-wing factions of Labor, I predict a new age of Liberal reform.

Doesn't make any sense. How are you defining 'Conservative'? Clinton was a conservative. The 'left-wing' factions you refer to are whom exactely? If it's Jeremy Corbyn then I agree but if we're talking Milibands and Browns and Balls (hahaha) then Blair is being forced out by yet more conservatives within the Labour party.

The Democratic Party of the United States are Centrist Traditional Conservatives as far as I'm concerned - perhaps neo-liberals (a conservative viewpoint).

There has been no 'leftist evolution'. We are still afflicted by global, unregulated, free market capitalism and thats the bottom line.

Look to the hills whenceforth comes your definitions. Or something.

Don't be so assured: the wheel is only turning.

Imagine a wheel or clock. Now put the liberals at nine o'clock and the conservatives at three o'clock (or whatever opposing points you like). Now imagine that the circle turns in a slow clockwise path (for the most part -- there are occasional lurches).

Right now, I read it that we're at about one o'clock, just shy of even, with the liberals ascendant. In 5-15 years, we'll be though that, with the conservatives becoming ascendant.

Don't be so assured: the wheel is only turning.

Imagine a wheel or clock. Now put the liberals at nine o'clock and the conservatives at three o'clock (or whatever opposing points you like). Now imagine that the circle turns in a slow clockwise path (for the most part -- there are occasional lurches).

Right now, I read it that we're at about one o'clock, just shy of even, with the liberals ascendant. In 5-15 years, we'll be though that, with the conservatives becoming ascendant.
Sadly, I must agree. It's just a circle. Shifts between liberal and conservative leaning government happen throughout history. Since I am a liberal, I hope the liberals will have a good long stay in government and do some changes that hopefully would not be undone when the conservatives take power after them.

Yup, neo-liberal economic policies are really over, now with China and India becoming superpowers...:confused:

We gonna vote for walruses? :confused:

Sure, they'll come back to power in due time.

People are fed up with Bush (I'm not a Bush-hater, so stfu about that), and want change.

Wonder why so many democrats won in this past November's elections?

People want change.
But remember, it's not like it'll last forever. Politics is a crest-and-trough system; something will happen to the liberals, and conservatives will come back to power.

Yup, neo-liberal economic policies are really over, now with China and India becoming superpowers...:confused:

they are not superpowers.

they are not superpowers.

Yet...

*bum, bum, bummmmmmmm.....*

they are not superpowers.

They're fast becoming them, though.

China moreso than India.

Actually, India's still what I consider a second-world country.

But China, no.

But, uh, Rotovia-, you do realized that this generation also happens to be far less militant and aggressive than our parents generation. There's a lot more apathy when dealing with politics of all stripes, and when someone can rouse us, it's only for a very, very short period of time.

Liberals are little more than hypocrites, advocating 'equality' and 'peace' when creating plenty of obvious racism and hate. Why are black supremecists considered heroes when white supremecists are racists? Liberal hypocrisy.

Why can a man get in trouble for even calling a black man 'black' but it's perfectly acceptable to call white men 'white'? The whole idea of political correctness, even, is idiocy. Not every black person came from Africa or is even American. This same thing goes for other minorities as well.

Feminism, even is only attempting now to give women more power than men. Equality has long been achieved, and any sense of sexism anymore is most of the time some ridiculous perception of a feminist brainwashed woman. Women these days are pretty much taught to hate men, that a man should never touch them but they have full right to attack him and give him a swift kick in the nuts. Too often, women even claim rape when the intercourse was perfectly consensual, and they will always win. Too often, an unqualified woman (or even other cases - a minority) is chosen for a job simply because of their position and not at all for their ability.

I note, I am in no way racist or sexist. I believe if the woman or whatnot is better for the job, than they should be allowed to get it. They should not, however, be allowed to gain occupation simply because of their gender or the color of their skin.

There was a particular court case, the exacts of which I cannot remember, which was being led by a council of judges. However, the lead judge, a liberal, removed any of the more conservative judges from the council, claiming them to be 'biased'. In reality, they only opposed his liberal views, so that was enough to get rid of them and just push them aside.

Moreso, Liberalism quite often tends to lead to Socialism/Communism. History has showed time and time again that the ideal of a Utopia is foolhardy and doomed to failure. Communist societies that last are those who stay in power through use of violence, fear, and propaganda (ie. Soviet Russia). Those who do maintain a 'true' view of Communism and live peaceably are proof that the system is flawed, only lasting short periods of time and ultimately resulting in failure (ie. Some of the first American colonies).

the Australian Liberal Party in serious trouble

I honestly hope that you don't think that the Coalition's loss in the Victorian election is an indicator of their strength. The Federal Coalition is still far more powerful than the ALP.

I honestly hope that you don't think that the Coalition's loss in the Victorian election is an indicator of their strength. The Federal Coalition is still far more powerful than the ALP.

Ditto that. It's going to come down to cases. Like it or lump it, I figure Peter Costello (Liberal heir-apparant) will lead the Libs into the next election - John Howard will retire before the next election.

If Labor keeps it's head and keeps Kim Beazley up front, they've got a good chance. But frankly, the current Labor back-room couldn't find it's ass with both hands, and they're just liable to stage a revolt and self-destruct before then, handing the Libs another 3 years on a platter.

Oh, and don't count the Republicans out in two years. "Anybody but Bush" won't cut it for the Democrats this time - hell, it didn't cut it last time - since they won't be up against Bush. They'll need a solid platform, not too radical as to scare off the middle of the roaders, and fresh, innovative policies. Otherwise, it'll be 2004 all over again.

Er, do they have any policies? Besides being against the Republicans?

It's a wonderful thought; but the OP looks over one simple fact.

People are stupid.

I don't see how the OP can be so happy. It's not going to happen. Anyone calling the Democrat party liberal is blind. The house speaker seems Liberal, but the party....:confused:

The world has got much more commercialised. Children grow up from birth being manipulated by the money men to grow up to be good consumers. Don't believe me. Have a look at a Bratz doll, or the Winx TV show.

Everyone has got more selfish. The left wing social values, of care for your fellow man, have been steadily destroyed since the 60s. One election isn't going to change that. It's a starting point to hope, but it would be like feminists in the 20s saying "We've got the vote, lets stop now, it's all O.K."

I don't see how the OP can be so happy. It's not going to happen. Anyone calling the Democrat party liberal is blind. The house speaker seems Liberal, but the party....:confused:

The world has got much more commercialised. Children grow up from birth being manipulated by the money men to grow up to be good consumers. Don't believe me. Have a look at a Bratz doll, or the Winx TV show.

Everyone has got more selfish. The left wing social values, of care for your fellow man, have been steadily destroyed since the 60s. One election isn't going to change that. It's a starting point to hope, but it would be like feminists in the 20s saying "We've got the vote, lets stop now, it's all O.K."

"Fuck commercialism" says the man from his computer.

Liberals are little more than hypocrites, advocating 'equality' and 'peace'

... wait a minute, I thought liberalism was about liberty. if you wanna talk about equality, look up socialists. yep, the word that is so banned in USA that every socialist has to market himself as a liberal or people think he's a commie.

when creating plenty of obvious racism and hate. Why are black supremecists considered heroes when white supremecists are racists? Liberal hypocrisy.
i consider myself very liberal yet I cringe on hearing that, I'd never ever think any racial supremacist is a hero.

Why can a man get in trouble for even calling a black man 'black' but it's perfectly acceptable to call white men 'white'? The whole idea of political correctness, even, is idiocy. Not every black person came from Africa or is even American. This same thing goes for other minorities as well.
you are 100% correct. But what has this to do with liberalism?

Feminism, even is only attempting now to give women more power than men. Equality has long been achieved, and any sense of sexism anymore is most of the time some ridiculous perception of a feminist brainwashed woman. Women these days are pretty much taught to hate men, that a man should never touch them but they have full right to attack him and give him a swift kick in the nuts. Too often, women even claim rape when the intercourse was perfectly consensual, and they will always win. Too often, an unqualified woman (or even other cases - a minority) is chosen for a job simply because of their position and not at all for their ability.
Well, dont have much to say about this one. Except that if someone doesn't want to be touched you got no bussiness touching them. I'm currently living with someone who calls herself feminist and she most certainly doesn't hate men. Still again, what exactly has this to do with liberalism?

I note, I am in no way racist or sexist. I believe if the woman or whatnot is better for the job, than they should be allowed to get it. They should not, however, be allowed to gain occupation simply because of their gender or the color of their skin.
Agree. Meritocracy is one of the big points of liberalism.

There was a particular court case, the exacts of which I cannot remember, which was being led by a council of judges. However, the lead judge, a liberal, removed any of the more conservative judges from the council, claiming them to be 'biased'. In reality, they only opposed his liberal views, so that was enough to get rid of them and just push them aside.

Try remembering the exact court case, else this is just hearsay with no value.

Moreso, Liberalism quite often tends to lead to Socialism/Communism. History has showed time and time again that the ideal of a Utopia is foolhardy and doomed to failure. Communist societies that last are those who stay in power through use of violence, fear, and propaganda (ie. Soviet Russia). Those who do maintain a 'true' view of Communism and live peaceably are proof that the system is flawed, only lasting short periods of time and ultimately resulting in failure (ie. Some of the first American colonies).

Liberalism is more diametrically opposed to communism than conservatism. I got absolutely no idea where you got that bullshit from. Liberals ARE NOT communist ARE NOT socialist.

And what an age it would be.
Just a quick correction of the facts, though: liberalism wasn't quite prevalent in the 90s. Clinton himself may have been a social leftist, but economically he was as dirty a capitalist as any Republican before him.
Clinton cut social programs, deregulated the economy, and while in 1990 the average US CEO earned 85 times what the average worker did, it was at 531 times in 2000. (http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10002825.shtml)
Nevertheless, up here in the true north, I feel it coming. Nobody's satisfied with Harper, at least not in my part of the country, and we had a NDP revolution last election, where they captured 3 of our 4 seats. The Greens have nearly doubled their support, the NDP is coming ever closer, riding by riding, in each eleciton, and at least two leftists (Rae and Dion) are in the top 4 after the first ballot at the Liberal leadership convention.
All it requires is that we spread the truth, the facts, and override the lies of the conservatives and laissez-faire capitalists so we can create a more social capitalist society instead of the dog-eat-dog, rights-threatening world we live in now. Let the truth ring.

When the Clinton Adminstration failed and faultered, and with the world gripped by fear, the conservatives secured the White House, maintained governmentin Australia and changed policy in England. The ideals of the 90s fell by the wayside and the plebes allowed the gradual reforms of nearly 50 years to be undo in just 4.

But with the US congress securely back in Democrat hands, the Australian Liberal Party in serious trouble and Tony Blair being forced out by left-wing factions of Labor, I predict a new age of Liberal reform.

The fears of the past are behind us and we can finally see the forrest for the trees. Our liberties have been stripped and the reasons are fallacies; we must now realise thatin order to preserve the ideals that are our nation, we must oppose those who lead it.

There is a new generation who is angry that our forefathers allowed greenhouse gases to choke the planet, civil liberties to be aroded, the public to be mislead, religion to replace reason and freedom to give way to fear.

This generation is angry and vocal, this generation will rise up with the power of the vote and the might of people and they will demand their right to justice. This generation will rise up over their parents and call for the values that they (their parents) once stould for to be redoubled through the houses of parliament and halls of justice.

Watch out conservatives, your days are numbered. The Liberal are waiting in the wings and have the numbers to restore power to the people and the values of liberal-democracy to all the western-world.

Ummm Conservatives are pro civil liberties, freedom, etc. Our parents were a pretty liberal bunch. Dang hippies.

Watch out conservatives, your days are numbered. The Liberal are waiting in the wings and have the numbers to restore power to the people and the values of liberal-democracy to all the western-world.

I think someone here forgot to mention the fact that many of the newly elected congress people are um....conservative DEMOCRATS?

You sound a bit too optimistic

Yeah. It was only a year ago here in the US that Karl Rove and Tom DeLay were crowing about a permanent conservative majority, and it's not like the Democrats (who haven't officially taken power yet) are all that progressive. They're just not reactionarily conservative.

You sound a bit too optimistic

Yes. Voters and conservative government are like toddlers and dangerous appliances. You fight and fight to keep them away from the electric outlet, then one day they get their finger stuck in it and never touch it again, and you think "well, that's that problem sorted." But then they see the bathtub...

...

I baked muffins.

:)

Can I have one?

I think someone here forgot to mention the fact that many of the newly elected congress people are um....conservative DEMOCRATS?
Someone here's been buying the conservative spin. The Republicans who lost in the northeast and the west lost to more progressive candidates. Candidates like Heath Shuler were the exception, not the rule, and what's more, from an economic standpoint, were far from conservative. Jim Webb? Economic populist. Jon Tester? Populist. He's made his living as an organic farmer, for crying out loud--how more hippie can you get?

So go ahead and tell yourself that the Dems who won were conservative. We'll just keep moving the country back toward the center, away from this ridiculous extreme the psycho christians have dragged us to.

I think someone here forgot to mention the fact that many of the newly elected congress people are um....conservative DEMOCRATS?

Some are, but for the most part it was the ultra-Conservatives who were forced out by fairly liberal Democrats. Hell, libertarian New Hampshire has a fucking Socialist in office now.

The Republicans however have a huge machine in place to pretend that it was because the Republicans weren't conservative enough that they got pushed out.

Their wanton spending was on the military, which conservatives support.

I read the only funny Mallard Fillmore just the other day on this very topic. "You spent like drunken Democrats" No they didn't. They spent like Republicans. Which is like a teenager with a credit card and a fake ID.

God this is going to be hilarious. The liberal wing and the moderates of the Democratic party are going to tear themselves apart. I very much look forward to the 2008 primaries.

Some are, but for the most part it was the ultra-Conservatives who were forced out by fairly liberal Democrats. Hell, libertarian New Hampshire has a fucking Socialist in office now.Are you talking about Bernie Sanders? Because he's from Vermont. Or are you talking about a local race?

But hey--let's look at the Republicans who lost. Santorum--hard right conservative lost to center-left Casey in Pennsylvania. Chaffee, liberal Republican, lost to even more liberal Whitehouse in Rhode Island. DeWine, moderate conservative in Ohio, lost to liberal Sherrod Brown in Ohio. I didn't see a single case in the Senate where the Democrat won by being more conservative than his or her opponent. Even in Missouri, Claire McCaskill was siginficantly to the left of Jim Talent by every measure.

God this is going to be hilarious. The liberal wing and the moderates of the Democratic party are going to tear themselves apart. I very much look forward to the 2008 primaries.

So do I, but mainly because it'll be interesting to see if the religious nutjobs in the Republican party get their way or if enough moderates challenge them and keep them from nominating someone like Brownback.

Someone here's been buying the conservative spin. The Republicans who lost in the northeast and the west lost to more progressive candidates. Candidates like Heath Shuler were the exception, not the rule, and what's more, from an economic standpoint, were far from conservative. Jim Webb? Economic populist. Jon Tester? Populist. He's made his living as an organic farmer, for crying out loud--how more hippie can you get?

So go ahead and tell yourself that the Dems who won were conservative. We'll just keep moving the country back toward the center, away from this ridiculous extreme the psycho christians have dragged us to.

I don't think it's conservative spin. Clinton positioned the Democrats right of centre and didn't exactly rid the States of Reaganomics did he? Yes the Christian Right are very different to the Dems but they are not the rule either. I'd define the Democrats' politics as I'd define New Labour's politics: Neo-liberal economically and Centre Right/Traditional Conservative/Classical Liberal policies in terms of Society.

This is, of course, a generalisation. You can't define the whole without looking at the composite parts but it is a fair assesment....I think.

So do I, but mainly because it'll be interesting to see if the religious nutjobs in the Republican party get their way or if enough moderates challenge them and keep them from nominating someone like Brownback.

Given the toxicity of Bush, I'm going to guess someone more on the moderate side. The struggle between the two Democratic camps, the liberal blogosphere-led die-hards like Pelosi and stalwart old-school Democrats like Clinton will be epic.

I don't think it's conservative spin. Clinton positioned the Democrats right of centre and didn't exactly rid the States of Reaganomics did he? Yes the Christian Right are very different to the Dems but they are not the rule either. I'd define the Democrats' politics as I'd define New Labour's politics: Neo-liberal economically and Centre Right/Traditional Conservative/Classical Liberal policies in terms of Society.

This is, of course, a generalisation. You can't define the whole without looking at the composite parts but it is a fair assesment....I think.

Democrats are turning HARD against neo-liberal economic policy. Their platform right now is based heavily on taxing the hell outta oil companies and pouring research into alternative energy as well as protectionism to spur the exodus of manufacturing/IT jobs.

Given the toxicity of Bush, I'm going to guess someone more on the moderate side. The struggle between the two Democratic camps, the liberal blogosphere-led die-hards like Pelosi and stalwart old-school Democrats like Clinton will be epic.
Dude--we're ascendant. There will be the basic struggles as in any primary battle, but there won't be any schism. Right now the Dems feel like they've got the potential to win big again in 2008, and they're not going to mess with that yet. The biggest danger for a schism is right after a bad loss, because there are competing groups all pointing fingers as to why the larger group lost. Differences that might have been ignored when they were winning are now major points of contention since they've lost. It happened to the Dems after 1994, and there's a real chance it'll happen to the Republicans now.

Dude--we're ascendant. There will be the basic struggles as in any primary battle, but there won't be any schism. Right now the Dems feel like they've got the potential to win big again in 2008, and they're not going to mess with that yet. The biggest danger for a schism is right after a bad loss, because there are competing groups all pointing fingers as to why the larger group lost. Differences that might have been ignored when they were winning are now major points of contention since they've lost. It happened to the Dems after 1994, and there's a real chance it'll happen to the Republicans now.

I dunno. Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean effectively knocked themselves out of contention by lobbying too hard against one another in Iowa, letting John Kerry take the state and the momentum. The big difference from 2004 and 2008 was the 2004 election had an undertone of "desperation" as evident by the ideology of "Anybody but Bush". The Democrats will definitely be heavy favorites in 2008 and I'm guessing that personal ambition, ego and overall "cockiness" will be an issue. John Kerry's already made it clear he will be running again with a chip on his shoulder. It could turn ugly.

I dunno. Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean effectively knocked themselves out of contention by lobbying too hard against one another in Iowa, letting John Kerry take the state and the momentum. The big difference from 2004 and 2008 was the 2004 election had an undertone of "desperation" as evident by the ideology of "Anybody but Bush". The Democrats will definitely be heavy favorites in 2008 and I'm guessing that personal ambition, ego and overall "cockiness" will be an issue. John Kerry's already made it clear he will be running again with a chip on his shoulder. It could turn ugly.
I'll say it loud and first right now--Kerry's got no shot. You have no idea the amount of anger still directed at him from the Democratic grassroots. He was up against the most inept president in history and couldn't close the deal--fuck him. He can stay a Massachussetts senator for the rest of his life, but he's not getting anywhere near the top of the ticket again.

Outside of that, all bets are off, though I think Hillary is roughly like Joe Lieberman in 2002--lots of cash and name recognition, and not much else, including not much of a chance.

But in the end, all the factions will join together to try to win, because we all realize that any Dem is better for us than any Republican, no matter how moderate talking he or she is.

Democrats are turning HARD against neo-liberal economic policy. Their platform right now is based heavily on taxing the hell outta oil companies and pouring research into alternative energy as well as protectionism to spur the exodus of manufacturing/IT jobs.

I hope like hell that's true. I just look at Britain in '97 when we all thought that we'd finally got rid of the terrifying New Right Thatcher Beyatch once and for all...and then it turned out we'd got a prettier, male version of her.

Beyond that we have the fact that politics in both the States and Britain has become centrist, populist and pragmatist politics. I'm not too surprised about the claim re taxing oil companies - what's the best ticket to turning non-religious swing voters at the moment? The environment.

David Cameron is using it for the Conservative Party in this country at the moment....Only a politician could use the destruction of our world for personal gain.....

I would say there's a big difference between a left-liberal and an economic populist. A left-liberal would promote trade policies that give third world countries a fair deal, a concerted effort against climate change and a coherent plan to use the state to make better society. An economic populist supports economic nationalism (never understood why protectionism is considered a left-wing idea), getting as much public subsidy for the industry in their constituency as possible, and talks about soaking the rich and big corporations while telling the 'middle class' (which in America is everyone not richer than you) that their taxes can still be cut, and just general incoherence. I think we seem to be agreeing that it's the populists that generally won the election, and even though it's a big improvement on Bush, I wouldn't say it's all that hopeful in the long term. I think a lot of them are pretty socially conservative as well, and I suspect the new Democrats will also turn out to still be quite corrupt.

Actually, India's still what I consider a second-world country.


You consider India communist?:eek:

I dunno. Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean effectively knocked themselves out of contention by lobbying too hard against one another in Iowa, letting John Kerry take the state and the momentum. <snip>

And thank goodness Dick Gephardt is done. If ever there was a man with a ruinous economic plan, it's him.

Dean might have been okay.

Kerry was actually the candidate I favored in the primaries, but he let himself be run by the polls.

OP snipped...all well and good, but you're not gunna be at the vanguard of any revolutionary movement til you learn to spell 'erroded'. (sorry, one of my pet peeves, goes along with 'affect' and 'effect', why do people have such difficulty with the difference between 'a' and 'e'?)

Because syntax is not a priority in Internet culture.

Regarding the original post, conservatives are hardly down for the count. As pointed out by other posters, it’s a cycle. The groups that best satisfy the needs and wants of people stay in power in democratic societies.

Replacing one path to authoritarianism with another...

Now I don't have to say what I was going to. Thank you. :)

Replacing one path to authoritarianism with another...

Black and white views of the world are stupid. Libertarian, are you?

Yes. Voters and conservative government are like toddlers and dangerous appliances. You fight and fight to keep them away from the electric outlet, then one day they get their finger stuck in it and never touch it again, and you think "well, that's that problem sorted." But then they see the bathtub...
Why do you think that voters instinctively go for conservatives?

all well and good, but you're not gunna be at the vanguard of any revolutionary movement til you learn to spell 'erroded'. (sorry, one of my pet peeves, goes along with 'affect' and 'effect', why do people have such difficulty with the difference between 'a' and 'e'?)Do you mean eroded (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=erode)?

Meh. Politics moves in multiple cycles. There's the 8 year small, left-right cycle, where Dems and Pubs rotate in and out, grow corrupt, and are kicked out on their asses, and the 50 year ideological cycles, where both parties become more or less conservative after about 15 years of sole-party control by one group.

The last one ended in 1970, so don't get your hoes up quite yet.

The last one ended in 1970, so don't get your hoes up quite yet.

:D Big pimpin are we?

:D Big pimpin are we?

:D

With the rise of a new political dialectic, I look foward to pimpin bein' a little less ain't-easy.

Comrades! Our day of glory draws nearer! Soon, the people will unite and rise against our capitalist oppressors! Soon, we will have world socialism! Happiness and food for all! Famine and scarcity for none! WORKINGMEN OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!

Hopefully the democrats and some right minded republicans will dismantle the several acts that have been passed which attack our civil liberties. What we really need however is a set of leaders that will stop passing legislation which grossly overstep or ignore the constitution in both matters civil and economic. But due to the tedency of both parties to be staffed by and large by men who merely tell the voters things that sound good but have little grounding in either reality or sense, im not too optimistic.

You consider India communist?:eek:
No, but it's richer than third world and poorer than first world.

There's a lot more apathy when dealing with politics of all stripes, and when someone can rouse us, it's only for a very, very short period of time.

Yea, I tend to get cramps if I need to leave my couch and vote. Ugh...I feel nauseous just thinking about it...
:p

Black and white views of the world are stupid. Libertarian, are you?


Why do you think that voters instinctively go for conservatives?

For the same reason that toddlers go for sugary treats and electrical outlets. They look intriguing and attractive when you don't know anything about them, and by the time you find out the damage has been done.

But it's not all that instinctive. There's an advertising machine driving it.

If you never exposed your kids to a Count Chocula or McDonald's ad (impossible to do if you let them watch TV) they'd be perfectly happy to consider grapes and apples a sweet treat.

If you never exposed a voter to the corporate media they'd understand that taxes, which they have to pay anyway, should be used to help people. That things get better when the poorest people get more money. Baisicly conservative policies are wrong on everything, but there is a huge propaganda machine designed to make it seem like something it isn't. Like Count Chocula being "part of a complete breakfast."

We are still afflicted by global, unregulated, free market capitalism and thats the bottom line.

LMAO

LMAO

Seconded. Wow, unregulated? How brainwashed are these morons?

Seconded. Wow, unregulated? How brainwashed are these morons?

Thirded. Wake up pal.

Thirded. Wake up pal.

Fourthded.

For the same reason that toddlers go for sugary treats and electrical outlets. They look intriguing and attractive when you don't know anything about them, and by the time you find out the damage has been done.

But it's not all that instinctive. There's an advertising machine driving it.

If you never exposed your kids to a Count Chocula or McDonald's ad (impossible to do if you let them watch TV) they'd be perfectly happy to consider grapes and apples a sweet treat.

If you never exposed a voter to the corporate media they'd understand that taxes, which they have to pay anyway, should be used to help people. That things get better when the poorest people get more money. Baisicly conservative policies are wrong on everything, but there is a huge propaganda machine designed to make it seem like something it isn't. Like Count Chocula being "part of a complete breakfast."


Conservative policies are not wrong on anything, the Republican Party's interpretation of the word "Conservative" is what's wrong.

Here (http://jim.com/econ/contents.html), everyone who calls themselves an economic liberal should read this.

Read Culture War by Bill O'Reilly. If the Republicans got a spine transplant and found their moral center, they could fix all of our problems.

Conservative policies are not wrong on anything, the Republican Party's interpretation of the word "Conservative" is what's wrong.
No, the very idea of conservatism as in freezing society at some sort of "natural" status quo is wrong. It's denying the rationality of the individual because they put the natural order of society above the choices of the individual person.

Classical Liberalism and economic freedom are fundamentally opposed to Conservatism. It's an amazing feat of doublethink that many people who call themselves conservative advocate the free market.

No, the very idea of conservatism as in freezing society at some sort of "natural" status quo is wrong. It's denying the rationality of the individual because they put the natural order of society above the choices of the individual person.

Classical Liberalism and economic freedom are fundamentally opposed to Conservatism. It's an amazing feat of doublethink that many people who call themselves conservative advocate the free market.
The idea of conservatism is wrong to some extent for that reason, I doubt that most conservatives want to abolish all changes in culture and progress but rather prefer that certain barriers not be crossed. Conservatism allows individual freedom but modifies and limits it to promote objectives, like most systems except libertarianism do.

No, they are not fundamentally opposed. The fact is that the old order that conservatives want to go back to has many classical liberal elements in it, just with a more socially conservative core. Conservatism in the US is just a meld between the social conservatism and classical liberalism. To call this an amazing feat of doublethink is sort of foolish though, conservatives do advocate a relatively free market because they think that their values of self-reliance, individualism, and rewards for hard-work are reflected by the free-market and by small government. By your argument, you could claim that any philosophy that believes in freedom but isn't classical liberal is doublethink.

Thirded. Wake up pal.

Rly? Laissez-faire neo-liberal economic policies do not succeed in regulating global capitalism as far as I am concerned.

I will concede that we don't have a totally unregulated anarcho-capitalist situation but, speaking as a Brit, reckless privatisation, fat-catitis and the fact that corporations can operate unchecked until the point where they break the law, read Enron and the NatWest Three, is wrong. Laugh if you must, I simply cannot stand neo-liberalist Reagonomics and so I committ exaggerations in order to profess my hatred for an economic policy that will always punish the poor, reward the rich and sustain British and American societies in the unequal state in which they find themeselves.

EDIT: Lifted from Wiki:

In an absolutely free-market economy, all capital, goods, services, and money flow transfers are unregulated by the government except to stop collusion that may take place among market participants. As this protection must be funded, such a government taxes only to the extent necessary to perform this function, if at all. This state of affairs is also known as laissez-faire. Internationally, free markets are advocated by proponents of economic liberalism; in Europe this is usually simply called liberalism. In the United States, support for free market is associated most with libertarianism. Since the 1970s, promotion of a global free-market economy, deregulation and privatization, is often described as neoliberalism. The term free market economy is sometimes used to describe some economies that exist today (such as Hong Kong), but pro-market groups would only accept that description if the government practices laissez-faire policies, rather than state intervention in the economy. An economy that contains significant economic interventionism by government, while still retaining some characteristics found in a free market is often called a mixed economy. A free market does not require the existence of competition, however it does require that there are no barriers to new market entrants. Hence, in the lack of coercive barriers it is generally understood that competition flourishes in a free market environment. It often suggests the presence of the profit motive, although neither a profit motive or profit itself are necessary for a free market. All modern free markets are understood to include entrepreneurs, both individuals and businesses. Typically, a modern free market economy would include other features, such as a stock exchange and a financial services sector, but they do not define it.

Rly? Laissez-faire neo-liberal economic policies do not succeed in regulating global capitalism as far as I am concerned.

I will concede that we don't have a totally unregulated anarcho-capitalist situation but, speaking as a Brit, reckless privatisation, fat-catitis and the fact that corporations can operate unchecked until the point where they break the law, read Enron and the NatWest Three, is wrong. Laugh if you must, I simply cannot stand neo-liberalist Reagonomics and so I committ exaggerations in order to profess my hatred for an economic policy that will always punish the poor, reward the rich and sustain British and American societies in the unequal state in which they find themeselves.

EDIT: Lifted from Wiki:

Would you prefer socialism, which reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator, stagnates the economy, and removes all incentives? No system is perfect, but capitalism is infinitely better than socialism. The Western world owes its high standard of living to it.

Would you prefer socialism, which reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator, stagnates the economy, and removes all incentives? No system is perfect, but capitalism is infinitely better than socialism. The Western world owes its high standard of living to it.

And great swaths of the Third and Western worlds owe their abject poverty to it.

As to Socialism. Well I would define myself as an evolutionary socialist - I don't believe in revolution - but in terms of practice I suppose I can move to the right enough to be a social democrat. As such I don't mind retaining the tenents of capitalism but only within a form of command economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_economy). I'm not advocating Soviet Communism, I merely want governments to regulate the fuck out of big business and to nationalise transport, health, higher education etc etc etc :D

Incidentally was the use of the word unregulated actually so funny that you rolled on the floor, or were you just assuming that I didn't know what I was talking about?

And great swaths of the Third and Western worlds owe their abject poverty to it.

Most Third World countries are socialist. If you look at the Ease of Doing Business Index, Indices of Economic Freedom, and Global Competitiveness Report, you'll see that the countries on the very bottom are often among the poorest in the world.

I wouldn’t bet on it.

Most Third World countries are socialist. If you look at the Ease of Doing Business Index, Indices of Economic Freedom, and Global Competitiveness Report, you'll see that the countries on the very bottom are often among the poorest in the world.

Firstly I disagree. What you should say is Some Third World countries are socialist. Many third world governments - especially in Africa - started out under a socialist banner - but could never be described rationally as socialist due to their overwhelming corruption and lack of committment to Equality of Outcome in their countries.

Why do you think that 'socialist' countries come bottom of these lists? To me it is because of global capitalism. These countries want to survive in a way in which they can push equality but they cannot. Why can't they? Because of capitalism. Because if they don't trade with the big boys and give up their lovely goods at knock-down rates then they won't trade with anyone because a lack of regulation means that there isn't competition any longer; the rich get the deals and the poor get shafted.

How interesting that Singapore is top or near the top of each list and has a government with (and yes I know they also have a lot of social conservative tendencies) socialist tendencies to combat it's free market.

Funny that Cuba is on the Indices of Economic Freedom. Of course it will be so low down; it can't trade with the big boys...and yet it has a higher life expectancy than the US and a lower infant mortality rate than the UK...just a thought...

No, the very idea of conservatism as in freezing society at some sort of "natural" status quo is wrong. It's denying the rationality of the individual because they put the natural order of society above the choices of the individual person.

Classical Liberalism and economic freedom are fundamentally opposed to Conservatism. It's an amazing feat of doublethink that many people who call themselves conservative advocate the free market.

In my opine, that is a stereotype, based on the word "Conserve" rather than on the history and philosophy of what has been called "Conservative". I call myself Conservative because I have compiled a point-by-point list of my stances on any issue I can think of, and they tend to be what most would call right-of-center.

I reject the idea that the driving focus of Conservatism is maintenance of the status quo. I don't agree with maintenance of the Status Quo for Status Quo's sake alone, but change for the sake of change is just as idiotic. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and if it is, do. Largely, in my opinion, Conservative is defined by being opposed to Socialistic policy, big government, idiotic regulation, Utopian societal meddling and etc.

One can hardly deny that Liberals and leftists maintain the Status Quo when they've achieved a Society that is to their liking, or would when they achieve their liberal Utopia?

Anyway, I reiterate that the Republicans are in large part not true Conservatives, and that this is why they were thrown out, not like it was such a harsh throw-out anyway. I think if the Dems start acting to radically liberal, they're gonna get a shock at the polls in two years.

Americans were disgusted with the Republicans, not because they hate Conservatism, but because they realized that the Republicans were not true conservatives. That's why they elected mostly moderate and Right-of-Center democrats this last November. If there were a third party that stood a chance, which stood for true Conservatism, the American people would elect it in a landslide.

They are disillusioned with the Republicans, and nobody likes the Idiotocrats. If a viable third option doesn't emerge, most likely we will just get backlash election against incumbents after backlash election against incumbents until one party or the other starts obeying the will of the people and stops telling the people what their will is.

And I truly believe that will is a Moderate Conservatism, not a moderate Liberalism.

Most Third World countries are socialist. If you look at the Ease of Doing Business Index, Indices of Economic Freedom, and Global Competitiveness Report, you'll see that the countries on the very bottom are often among the poorest in the world.

Errr, most third world countries are either true dictatorships, or de-facto ones where the economic hurdles relate more to issues of corruption and lack of basic infrastructure than any defined positions on a political compass.

Firstly I disagree. What you should say is Some Third World countries are socialist. Many third world governments - especially in Africa - started out under a socialist banner - but could never be described rationally as socialist due to their overwhelming corruption and lack of committment to Equality of Outcome in their countries.

Nyerere was committed to it, and look at what a shithole he made out of Tanzania.

Why do you think that 'socialist' countries come bottom of these lists? To me it is because of global capitalism. These countries want to survive in a way in which they can push equality but they cannot. Why can't they? Because of capitalism. Because if they don't trade with the big boys and give up their lovely goods at knock-down rates then they won't trade with anyone because a lack of regulation means that there isn't competition any longer; the rich get the deals and the poor get shafted.

It's largely due to government intervention, in the form of protectionism, that prevents them from selling their goods to us. Also, economic freedom is very low in these countries. The few African countries that had even remote success in the past - Kenya, Cote d'Ivoire, etc. - had free-market economies.

How interesting that Singapore is top or near the top of each list and has a government with (and yes I know they also have a lot of social conservative tendencies) socialist tendencies to combat it's free market.

Singapore's not socialist. Singapore has a free-market economy.

Funny that Cuba is on the Indices of Economic Freedom. Of course it will be so low down; it can't trade with the big boys...and yet it has a higher life expectancy than the US and a lower infant mortality rate than the UK...just a thought...

Cuba trades with almost every country in the world. Just not with us.

Can I have one please?

*tosses you a muffin* :)

Can I have one?

*hands out muffins* :)

As long as there are people who are fed up with a big government, high taxes, and corrupted leaders, there will always be Conservatives.

When the Clinton Adminstration failed and faultered, and with the world gripped by fear, the conservatives secured the White House, maintained governmentin Australia and changed policy in England. The ideals of the 90s fell by the wayside and the plebes allowed the gradual reforms of nearly 50 years to be undo in just 4.

But with the US congress securely back in Democrat hands, the Australian Liberal Party in serious trouble and Tony Blair being forced out by left-wing factions of Labor, I predict a new age of Liberal reform.

The fears of the past are behind us and we can finally see the forrest for the trees. Our liberties have been stripped and the reasons are fallacies; we must now realise thatin order to preserve the ideals that are our nation, we must oppose those who lead it.

There is a new generation who is angry that our forefathers allowed greenhouse gases to choke the planet, civil liberties to be aroded, the public to be mislead, religion to replace reason and freedom to give way to fear.

This generation is angry and vocal, this generation will rise up with the power of the vote and the might of people and they will demand their right to justice. This generation will rise up over their parents and call for the values that they (their parents) once stould for to be redoubled through the houses of parliament and halls of justice.

Watch out conservatives, your days are numbered. The Liberal are waiting in the wings and have the numbers to restore power to the people and the values of liberal-democracy to all the western-world.

Well I, like others, still view things as cyclical.

My bolded portion brings up something. I think we will see a severe schism politically in this country based on age, when baby-boomer entitlements catch up with us and hamper the economy.


China moreso than India.

Actually, India's still what I consider a second-world country.

I think that 50 years from now, India will be far more influential in the world than China will be. Time will tell.

But, uh, Rotovia-, you do realized that this generation also happens to be far less militant and aggressive than our parents generation. There's a lot more apathy when dealing with politics of all stripes, and when someone can rouse us, it's only for a very, very short period of time.

I'll point to my previous comment...if the shit hits the economic fan, don't be surprised if the 18-35 year olds decide they aren't going to go broke paying their parents bills anymore.

I read the only funny Mallard Fillmore just the other day on this very topic. "You spent like drunken Democrats" No they didn't. They spent like Republicans. Which is like a teenager with a credit card and a fake ID.

Siggable! :)

God this is going to be hilarious. The liberal wing and the moderates of the Democratic party are going to tear themselves apart. I very much look forward to the 2008 primaries.

So do I, but mainly because it'll be interesting to see if the religious nutjobs in the Republican party get their way or if enough moderates challenge them and keep them from nominating someone like Brownback.

Heinlein predicted a Christian theocracy in the U.S. by the 2020s. I haven't seen any reason yet why that couldn't happen.

I'll be watching to see if the Republicans nominate another socially conservative lightning rod. If they feel their only chance is to lean on the Christian Right vote, well...just imagine a capable and competent Bush. :eek:

Democrats are turning HARD against neo-liberal economic policy. Their platform right now is based heavily on taxing the hell outta oil companies and pouring research into alternative energy as well as protectionism to spur the exodus of manufacturing/IT jobs.

I'm curious to know whether you think these are good things or bad things?

I'll say it loud and first right now--Kerry's got no shot. You have no idea the amount of anger still directed at him from the Democratic grassroots. He was up against the most inept president in history and couldn't close the deal--fuck him.

I'll say the bolded part loud and second!

Here (http://jim.com/econ/contents.html), everyone who calls themselves an economic liberal should read this.

Can you sum that up for me? I have enough homework as it is. :p

If a viable third option doesn't emerge, most likely we will just get backlash election against incumbents after backlash election against incumbents until one party or the other starts obeying the will of the people and stops telling the people what their will is.

Third option will take less time!

Third option! *crosses fingers* :p

---

I just want to say that this is probably the one of the best threads that I have seen on NSG in a long while. Good comments from lots of people with little spam (but good spam! :) ) and no flames.

Everyone should pat themselves on the back. :D

Conservatism allows individual freedom but modifies and limits it to promote objectives, like most systems except libertarianism do.
Except that the objectives are in themselves anti-individualist. A conservative (and I'm thinking old-school, 18th century Britain conservatism) objective has to do with making society better, the nation stronger and is also often connected with religious goals of a proper morality.

Note that they don't talk about making society better as a thing to live in, but they make the mistake of objectifying the rather abstract construct of society - they tend to believe that society in itself has certain needs and wants...in some cases even that there is something of a "national destiny".

It's when you use the abstract construct of society (that being a blanket term for the relationships between a given set of individuals) in that way, you begin denying the fundamental thing all political and economic philosophy should really be concerned with: the wellbeing of the individual.

Example: Say a given group of conservatives are against homosexuality. If they're religiously inspired, they might say that god doesn't like gay people and they would therefore outlaw it. Others might say that homosexuality weakens the nation either by producing "inferior" people or simply by reducing the birthrates.

Either way they are not concerned with the fact that a dude might be happier being gay, they put something else before the individual.

No, they are not fundamentally opposed. The fact is that the old order that conservatives want to go back to has many classical liberal elements in it, just with a more socially conservative core. Conservatism in the US is just a meld between the social conservatism and classical liberalism. To call this an amazing feat of doublethink is sort of foolish though, conservatives do advocate a relatively free market because they think that their values of self-reliance, individualism, and rewards for hard-work are reflected by the free-market and by small government.
And going from what I say above about conservatives not believing in the supremacy of the individual, the doublethink should be quite obvious.

The free market, all the philosophy and theory behind it, relies absolutely fundamentally on the individual, the rational economic agent. It argues that a person is the only agent that can accurately know what that person wants, and is the only agent that can reliably make proper decisions about which alternatives to choose from.

In other words: the free market puts the individual first, it is the supreme decision-maker, and apart from a few rare exceptions, all outside intervention in the decision process (at least if it changes the outcome) will lead to inferior outcomes.

So a conservative who believes in the free market basically says: "No, gay people don't know what's best for themselves, society's interests come first!" and parallel to that, he'd be quite ready to say: "No, minimum wage hikes aren't good because they deny the individual's ability to set wages whichever way he or she wants, 'society' can't accurately decide on things like this!"

And that's the foundation of the pretty obvious schism between having for example a political compass score of 10 and 10...one denoting authoritarianism in social issues, and the other denoting freedom and choice in economic matters.

By your argument, you could claim that any philosophy that believes in freedom but isn't classical liberal is doublethink.
I could and do. Except of course that there are some versions of anarchism which may not be "free market" in the traditional sense, but still accept the supremacy of the individual. Those are fine too.

Largely, in my opinion, Conservative is defined by being opposed to Socialistic policy, big government, idiotic regulation, Utopian societal meddling and etc.
So, let's say that people like being gay. Or that they "like" having abortions. Or that stem cell researchers might save lives.

If there was no government to meddle, the natural trend would be (particularly in the free market) to accommodate the needs and wants of people within their environments, over time.

However, most traditional conservative governments would indeed begin to meddle, and place restrictions on things like homosexuality, stem cell cloning or abortion.

I agree with you that organic change could certainly be accommodated by a really back-to-basics form of conservatism, like the one championed in Britain during the French Revolution (which one might call the supreme example of utopian meddling). But unfortunately it seems impossible to distinguish between an example of organic change, and an example of outside change forced upon society.

In the vast majority of cases, conservatives will tend to denounce organic change as artificially produced by some misfits within society (or outside it). And in the vast majority of those cases, their counterargument will be deeply irrational, inspired by things like religion or tradition, which really have no place in politics or rational decisionmaking.

One can hardly deny that Liberals and leftists maintain the Status Quo when they've achieved a Society that is to their liking, or would when they achieve their liberal Utopia?
Leftists, perhaps. I wouldn't shy away from calling Communist Party Hardliners "conservative", because aside from the rhetoric they stand for much the same things an Edmund Burke might have stood for.

Hey, go to Sweden, and your hardcore conservative will be just as committed to defending the social market economy there as a US Republican might be to defending the free market.

Liberals don't really have a status quo as such. They'd be seeking an environment in which every individual can do as they please as much as possible - they wouldn't have ideals regarding what individuals actually end up doing. So they wouldn't be seeking to conserve anything but the basic rule of "your rights end where those of another begin".

If you never exposed a voter to the corporate media they'd understand that taxes, which they have to pay anyway, should be used to help people. That things get better when the poorest people get more money. Baisicly conservative policies are wrong on everything, but there is a huge propaganda machine designed to make it seem like something it isn't. Like Count Chocula being "part of a complete breakfast."
OK, I understand now. In my experience people instinctively go left-wing because it seems morally right, and usually results in their quality of life being subsidised (self-interest). But I live in a different country than you.

Here (http://jim.com/econ/contents.html), everyone who calls themselves an economic liberal should read this.
Do you know what an economic liberal is?

Your link demonstrates that conservative policies are wrong... many of the arguments are against the interests of most people, thus wrong.


Classical Liberalism and economic freedom are fundamentally opposed to Conservatism. It's an amazing feat of doublethink that many people who call themselves conservative advocate the free market.
How so? Conservatism is designed to make life difficult for the common man. So is capitalism.

As long as there are people who are fed up with a big government, high taxes, and corrupted leaders, there will always be Conservatives.
Then why do conservative people usually support measures that enlarge government?

How so? Conservatism is designed to make life difficult for the common man. So is capitalism.
This isn't really the thread for it. But if you want, you can start another and I'll explain to you what capitalism is and what it isn't...and most importantly that people who advocate capitalism often do so because they want to help people.

This isn't really the thread for it. But if you want, you can start another and I'll explain to you what capitalism is and what it isn't...and most importantly that people who advocate capitalism often do so because they want to help people.
Well, admittedly my descriptions were stupidly simplistic.

But capitalism does mesh well with conservatism, because it reinforces the provision of rights according to who has the most power (conservatism) and money (capitalism).

But capitalism does mesh well with conservatism, because it reinforces the provision of rights according to who has the most power (conservatism) and money (capitalism).
Well, humans are pesky things, particularly if they've been brought up with a ridiculous sense of entitlement, yes.

But you'll have to believe me when I say that this current corporatism and government-in-bed-with-big-business isn't representative of capitalism at all, and that those who advocate capitalism for the most part don't want anything to do with corporatism. Indeed, one reason for minimising government involvement in the economy is to eliminate the ability of corporations to abuse it.

I found that the people who advocate the US as proper capitalism are generally the Republican "Conservative" type, while actual Classical Liberals are much more sceptical.

I've got two links in my signature. One is the link to Gary Becker's and Richard Posner's blog. The former is a Nobel Prize winning economist from the free-market Chicago School of economics, the latter a somewhat eccentric high-level judge also strongly affiliated with the Chicago School. It's always worth having a look, because it provides a realistic capitalist view of current issues.
The second link is the classic "On Liberty" essay by JS Mill. It's one of the basic writings of Classical Liberalism, and if you take the time to read it you'll find that it's hardly advocating corporate power.

But capitalism does mesh well with conservatism, because it reinforces the provision of rights according to who has the most power (conservatism) and money (capitalism).

Capitalism is closely affiliated with class society. That is why it is associated with conservatism.

The free market (not the same as capitalism) is, however, very much anti-conservative. That is why the conservatives hate it.

The second link is the classic "On Liberty" essay by JS Mill. It's one of the basic writings of Classical Liberalism, and if you take the time to read it you'll find that it's hardly advocating corporate power.

Nor is it advocating capitalism (though Mill did.)

Nor is it advocating capitalism (though Mill did.)
It's shining through at times. But yeah, the whole thing is more about conveying a mindset than a specific system, I reckon.

EDIT: Also, I like your sig. :p
In fact, work is mass murder or genocide.

Kreynoria;12027532']Read Culture War by Bill O'Reilly. If the Republicans got a spine transplant and found their moral center, they could fix all of our problems.

Unfortunately, that's about as likely as the Democrats getting an understanding of how economics actually works and that equal rights means equal rights. :(

I apologize up front for the lack of eloquence and explanation -- it sounds like a cop-out, but lately my brain has not been functioning properly, does anybody know what I mean? -- but, to get to the point, I am glad that the Democrats are back in office. Maybe the planet has a chance now. :D

I apologize up front for the lack of eloquence and explanation -- it sounds like a cop-out, but lately my brain has not been functioning properly, does anybody know what I mean? -- but, to get to the point, I am glad that the Democrats are back in office. Maybe the planet has a chance now. :D

Doubtful. They still have to compromise for the next 2 years if they want any meaningful legislation to pass.

Nothing is going to get done these next 2 years.

Doubtful. They still have to compromise for the next 2 years if they want any meaningful legislation to pass.

Nothing is going to get done these next 2 years.

Of course not. Ultimately, very little gets done the first two years of a party shift. My meaning was for the long run, not immediate. =)

Would you prefer socialism, which reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator, stagnates the economy, and removes all incentives? No system is perfect, but capitalism is infinitely better than socialism. The Western world owes its high standard of living to it.

Ever been to Canada/Sweden/Switzerland?

Ever been to Canada/Sweden/Switzerland?

Switzerland is horribly expensive, as is most of Western Europe -- which is a major reason why European birth rates are so low as that they're not even at replacement level.

Canada has been suffering a major brain-drain in medicine (in particular) as many of their better doctors come to the US for the money. Indeed, many Canadians cross the border for surgery -- though not nearly as many as Americans that cross into Canada for cheap drugs.

Ever been to Canada/Sweden/Switzerland?
None of them are socialist, at least not in the way that Congo probably means.

Then why do conservative people usually support measures that enlarge government?

There's a difference between Conservatives and Neo-Cons.

There's a difference between Conservatives and Neo-Cons.
When the vast majority of conservatives support the neo-cons there is no meaningful difference.

When I mentioned policies that enlarge government, I meant the Iraq war specifically, and the desire to increase US global military presence and expenditure in general.

When the vast majority of conservatives support the neo-cons there is no meaningful difference.

When I mentioned policies that enlarge government, I meant the Iraq war specifically, and the desire to increase US global military presence and expenditure in general.

If we were trying to increase US global military presence, then how come we're not conquering another nation right now, how come we're not back in Imperial mode?

If we were trying to increase US global military presence, then how come we're not conquering another nation right now, how come we're not back in Imperial mode?
An actual small government would not have gone into Iraq in the first place, and would not be continuing to station thousands of US troops and equipment in countries around the globe.

Of course not. Ultimately, very little gets done the first two years of a party shift. My meaning was for the long run, not immediate. =)

Don't expect the long run either. Depends on what happens in 2008.

An actual small government would not have gone into Iraq in the first place, and would not be continuing to station thousands of US troops and equipment in countries around the globe.

And yet a small government fought the Barbary Pirates and won. Fought the British in 1812 and tied them.

If you want someone to blame then blame the progressive democrat FDR as well as Hitler, the Italian dictator, and Tojo who declared war on the US and forced us to expand our military. On top of that, blame the Cold War as well followed by Eisenhower, Kennedy, and LBJ for Vietnam.

You want to place blame so badly then place it where it is do. Back to the early '40s where it belongs.

An actual small government would not have gone into Iraq in the first place, and would not be continuing to station thousands of US troops and equipment in countries around the globe.

Well that's international warfare for you. We beat the axis power, so we get to put our base on there. The Philippines, same thing, etc.