People associate the KKK with the Right. Why? No one knows... but let's face it. Conservatives believe in a colorblind society, liberals want hate crime legislation which derives from the idea that because a minority group has been offended, the punishment should be made worse. Obviously neither side should be associated with the KKK, but conservatives least of all, ESPECIALLY when we believe in a colorblind society... liberals use race as a political playing card (ie. the Kennedy comment about "if I was an African American and taken to jail...").
You see, liberalism has always tried to twist and use science on their side to further their political agenda. We've seen it in a number of political issues including plastic surgery, pornography, etc. And each time they've been proven wrong in the end.
Whereas a conservative doesn't care if evolution is true, because that's the way that God made it. If something is the way it is, then it must be how God intended it, so we see conservatism try to twist science very little (except with the obvious "global warming" issues-- although science is still on the side of neo-conservatives).
So what TRM was saying wasn't meant to mean that liberals can't be Christians, but what he was saying is that liberals in modern politics often use "science" to prove a point, and try to bend it to their will, whereas a conservative might not.
I'm not trying to offend liberals in this, because I'm obviously talking about extremist politicians (which don't even deserve to be called liberals-- true liberals would have souls
).
So let's talk about how liberalism derived. Liberalism derived from the idea of communism; but meant to fit in better to our modern world. They fight for things such as tax redistribution, and they believe that everyone should be taken care of-- much like communism preaches. So why are liberals against the war in Iraq? They should love it, because of the help the Iraqi people are getting (ie. a true liberal would think more like what Dascu said, "I think the war's over oil, but I support it because of the help it's brining to Iraq.") A conservative may not like the war, because conservatism derives from the opposite of what liberalism derived from: caring about oneself, letting the poor starve to death, while the rich throw parties. So if a conservative thought that Saddam was never any threat to them directly, they should be against the war. Why has it made a flip-flop? Modern politics.
Nowadays, politics is about getting power for our leaders. Of course liberals are going to be against the war if conservatives support it-- because you now have an issue that can be presented in 30 seconds to vote "for" or "against".
So if I was to look at conservatism in it's raw form, I would be totally and completely against it, because it's evil. Liberalism in it's raw form? Communism, and I'm against that, because of corruption. Modern conservatism, or rather, American conservatism is about tradition, the constitution, limited government, and capitalism. American liberalism is a culmination of all the minority groups, and it's all socialism.
So we have two opposite side, the Right and Left. And that's what is wrong with America: extremism. Liberals say that we shouldn't worry about strengthening our border, and so the extreme Right says "hey let's build a wall". So it now becomes yet another 30 second political issue and you're either for or against it, and so America is being pushed to the far Right (which is why so many conservatives exist in America today, and why the extreme Right is winning the current political battles), because you're given an extremist option, either all or nothing, and all is better than nothing, even though a more balanced solution would help.
Let's take a look at educational vouchers: you're either for or against them. That's completely and utterly stupid. If I had to vote one way or the other, I'd vote for them, but in reality the system could easily be fixed, and we could have a system that both sides would like. Unfortunately it's much harder to be voted in office unless you are the opposite of your opponent's position, and the American people really don't want to hear a political proposition that will take more than 30 seconds.
So there has to be a balance. I'm not a paleo-conservative (which is modern conservatism), I'm a neo-conservative. The difference is that neo-conservatism addresses ideas that socialism brings up. IE. a neo-conservative and a *true* liberal (not an American liberal) would scold Clinton for not going into and helping in Rwanda. Whereas a true conservative, and an American liberal would be against it, because it's "not our battle".
So I think that's what we all need to keep in mind, is that we need to address issues, and not just be "for" or "against" them.
And this is why I'll never make it in a political office <_<
Author
Topic: Is President Bush a good president? (Read 13387 times)