Journal neocon's Journal: Last Journal Archived (a placeholder) 6
Well, the last journal entry was archived just as the discussion was getting interesting, so consider this entry a placeholder for further discussion on the same topic. I'll kick off with a response to Syx's last post.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
On the contrary -- you suggest that I am dismissing Hostile17's position, when I am trying to determine what it is in the first place. After a promising start, telling us that progressives are those who favor change, he went on to qualify that by saying that they only favor those changes which are `progress'. When asked what `progress' was, he gave a.) a laundry list of causes which both Conservatives and Liberals are in complete agreement on, and b.) the snide suggestion that progress was whatever Conservatives opposed.
This brings us back to my original complaint, voiced in the original journal entry, that Liberals these days seem to spend far more time defining themselves in opposition to Conservatives than they do deciding what a coherent and rational platform to support is -- this was perhaps most clear in our recent election, where there was almost no unity of voice among Democratic candidates (did they oppose the war? The majority of House Democrats voted against authorizing the use of force, but the majority of Senate Democrats voted for authorization. Did they want to reverse the Bush tax cut? They said so often, but even with control of the Senate, they never made any attempt to do so, and a number of Democrats in the House and in the Senate had voted for the cut in the first place.
In light of this, I've been trying to determine if there is a coherent Liberal principle. So far, the closest we've gotten is Hostile17's statement about supporting change, which was then withdrawn in favor of more lists of examples. Since it seems that many who call themselves `Liberals' have very different sets of goals on such lists, and since a lot of time seems to be spent claiming credit for supporting goals which both sides support whole-heartedly (as per Hostile17's claims that Liberals are those who want women's suffrage, or your claims that Liberals are those who want prosperity for all), it seems to me that there has to be some deeper basis for these lists of goals, or else being a `Liberal' can mean, in fact, anything at all.
So, what of it? What principles help a Liberal determine what is a good goal and what is not? I've posted such principles as Conservatives would use, and welcomed discussion or disagreement. I still welcome discussion of those, but I ask also to know what a Liberal's principals are.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
I have decided I do not understand your frame of reference well enough to give you the answers you are looking for, as I said, I think we need to get on the same page so we can communicate better. I consider myself a truly open minded person and I try not to discount things simply because I do not understand them. This is the reason I watch FoxNews, even though it makes my blood pressure go up. So I am currently reading up on the subject morality, ethics and politics, specificly from the conserative point of view. If you have any websites you think might contribute to my understanding, I will be happy to take a look. Once I have a better understanding of your point of view, I should be able to provide you a better understanding of what it means to be liberal.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
Some good books:
- Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus [barnesandnoble.com] by Dinesh D'Souza -- as good a starting place as any, focused on PC, Affirmative Action, and other conflicts of the modern campus, but a lot of fun, and a good starter in Conservative ideas in general
- The Woven Figure: Conservatism and America's Fabric [barnesandnoble.com] by George F. Will -- somewhat dated, but a good cross-section of conservative thought in the form of a collection of Will's essays from the period of the Gingrich revolution in the house
- Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News [barnesandnoble.com] by Bernard Goldberg -- a good report from an insider at CBS news (and not a conservative in particular) who became fed up with the pervasive slant in broadcast journalism
- An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of a Renegade Democrat [or how I Became the Most Hated Hispanic in America] [barnesandnoble.com] by Linda Chavez -- a life story of one of today's leading Conservative writers, and her transition from the left.
- How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace) [barnesandnoble.com] by Harry Stein -- similar to the last: another liberal comes of age and begins to doubt what he's been told
Since that's a pretty big Barnes and Noble cart, I'll try to get back to you with a similar list of articles and web sites later tonight or tomorrow.Enjoy!
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
The number one thing so far that's stuck out at me is what was mentioned earlier in the other thread: Those whom we commonly label as liberals today are relativists, or post-modernists, and those who are labeled as conservatives are absolutists. All other differences seem to flow from this.
When I've held intellectual debates with conservatives, we argue logic and reason. The basic understanding is that there exists a 'truth' somewhere between thesis and antithesis, and by setting the two against each other using a set of rules which favors neither, the stronger arguement will win out, and more often than not, we end up with a conclusion that's not quite what either of us went in with.
On the other hand, when I've debated the issues with my liberal friends, it's hard to agree that a 'right answer' exists, or that there's a possibility of impartial reason. What's left is to see who believes in their position most strongly. I walk away either feeling like I've just battered a friend with my strong opinion, which I don't like and they don't like, or feeling like I've been totally ignored. I learn nothing from these experiences except that some people I very much like as people don't view things as I do, and I never learn what it is that led them to their viewpoint.
Re:the problem of left/right. (Score:2)
More generally, your claim that such innovations as ending slavery, giving blacks the vote, or women's suffrage were opposed by `the establishment' is obviously false. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, each of these liberties were established by ammending the US Constitution, which means that a majority of at least 75% of the states (and in practice, much more actually ratified on each of these issues) had to be in complete agreement, not opposition, or these would not have occurred.