By the definition above, I believe that I would be classified as a "liberal". However, in the context of current American political landscape application of the term to most Republicans, while apt, would only confuse matters. In the here and now, the term liberal is generally assumed to refer to the Left wing of the American political spectrum. Out on the fringes of the Left-wing are the Anarchists, Marxist/Communists, and Socialists... all of whom oppose political pluralism, capitalism and the representative government described in the Constitution. They will use those Constitutional guarantees to advance their agenda, but if they ever are successful that will be the end of the American Experiment. On the fringes of the Right-wing there are authoritarians who also, given the power to do so, would end American pluralism by institutionalizing laws and policies favoring one group or another. Typically, the radicals on the Right are associated with Radical Christian Fundamentalism, and even more marginal, a few hold-overs from racially bigoted groups. Both extremes are far more strident and vocal than the vast majority of Americans; most of whom fit easily into the "liberal" definition offered above.
It is a mistake to identify our Political Parties too closely with the extreme wings of either. Our Parties can only remain viable by remaining moderate and centerist. Both Parties can be traced back to the very great divisions in American Political Philosophy at the end of the 18th century, but both are in continual evolution as they adjust their views to new conditions and demands on the part of the mostly apolitical center.
I believe that the greatest change in political philosophy can be found in the Democratic Party since the middle of the 20th century. Since that time the Democratic Party has gone from a dedication to decentralization and minimal Federal government, to a philosophy of very large government responsible for the social well-being of every citizen. They have become the champions of social reform by government fiat.
The GOP has also evolved from the "purity" of its roots, but those changes have been relatively minor compared with the Democratic Party. Republican Administrations directed the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, a number of Cold War clashes, and Gulf Wars I and II. The current administration hasn't gone very far from any of its Republican predecessors in terms of using the military to advance American interests. This administration has, on the other hand, adopted policies antithetical to civil rights not seen since Lincoln in Republican war. Before we condemn this administration, we should look at how Democratic administrations have conducted war.
Democratic administrations presided over most of America's wars during the 20th century. Wilson, after promising to keep America out of war, plunged us into one of the most brutal and lethal wars of all time. Wilson's administration curtailed civil liberties far beyond the steps taken by Lincoln during the American Civil War. Wilson helped make the Versailles Treaty a disaster. He sought approval for turning over American Sovereignty to the League of Nations an ineffective organization that paved the way to WWII.
FDR led the nation during crisis, and was a highly effective leader in the war against fascism and Japanese imperialism. During WWII, Government secrecy rose to unprecedented new heights. The VP of the United States wasn't even aware of the code name "Manhattan Project", and censorship was pervasive. Of course, it was easier then when reporters had to trudge alone with the troops, hack out a story and then somehow get it on a transatlantic cable to print syndicates and newspapers. The government monitored all cable, reviewed every photograph for suitability before publication, and wire-tapped a whole range of people in secret.
Truman led us during the Korean Conflict, and desegregated the military over the objections of Southern Democrats. Truman was a bit like George Bush, a very unpopular figure who won elections even though he was regarded as crude and a disgrace to the dignity of the Office. Truman was an honest man, but he was also a machine-politician who would never have attained national status without the Pendergast Machine, and FDRs death in office.
Vietnam was the albatross around the necks of JFK and LBJ. Many of todays Democratic critics seem to forget that it was the Democratic Party who in those days held almost absolute power in the halls of Congress and the White House. I shouldn't have to point out that the civil rights of Americans were routinely infringed upon during those administrations. However, in retrospect both LBJ and JFK's judgments as to America's interest in prosecuting that war was better than the clamor of pacifists and anti-war activists (and I'm guilty with many others for opposing that conflict). The Cold War was a hateful thing, but absolutely necessary to the preservation of liberty and democracy around the world. That War had to be won, and in the 1960's the battle was being waged in S.E. Asia.
With the end of the Cold War, the old system of proxies and clients broke down and Radical Islamic Militants saw their opportunity to strike out at the infidel West. We in the West had hoped that the peace after the fall of the bad old Soviet Union would last at least a generation. We were wrong, but Bin Ladin sent a wake up call to the American People on 9/11. That struggle is not over, but inroads against Islamic Terrorism are being made. America is today not quite so easy a target as it was a few years ago. One of the most dangerous and brutal dictators is no longer around to foster hatred and instability in the region. Radical Jihadists are being hunted down and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan who would otherwise be free to attack targets in the West. Bin Ladin is still at liberty, but he must cower in the caves of remote regions where communications with terrorist cells is more difficult.
All good points Asherman and good analysis as always. That is why I would never use 'liberal' (meaning modern or 21st century American liberal) to describe a typical Republican but prefer the designation of 'classical liberal' or modern (21st century) conservative which Walter and I have been discussing.
If you agree with those four principles of classical liberalism as outlined in the Belmont University essay I posted earlier today, that, by my definition, would make you a modern conservative.
Do you agree that the GOP has offended its conservative base over the last several years? Do you think the GOP can correct this sufficiently to regain loyalty from that base?
Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Fox - You're doing it again...
Foxfyre wrote:Note this does not have to automatically assume anybody did anything wrong. It only begs the question of how the base became alienated.
Foxfyre wrote:...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.
Red added for emphasis.
Nice try with the introduction of the phrase "alienation." The fact is you specifically asked "what went wrong."
You can back pedal all you like. I'm not letting you off the hook. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
T
K
O
I suggested that allowance for figure of speech applies here. "Where you/I/we/they went wrong" is NOT the same thing as doing something wrong.
Uh huh, and water is very dry.
Just as I thought, your too arrogant to admit what you've done.
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Fox - You're doing it again...
Foxfyre wrote:Note this does not have to automatically assume anybody did anything wrong. It only begs the question of how the base became alienated.
Foxfyre wrote:...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.
Red added for emphasis.
Nice try with the introduction of the phrase "alienation." The fact is you specifically asked "what went wrong."
You can back pedal all you like. I'm not letting you off the hook. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
T
K
O
I suggested that allowance for figure of speech applies here. "Where you/I/we/they went wrong" is NOT the same thing as doing something wrong.
Uh huh, and water is very dry.
Just as I thought, your too arrogant to admit what you've done.
T
K
O
No TKO. I'm arrogant enough to want the thread to stay on track and not be sidetracked by the trolls who come in here with the intention of making trouble, who think attacking somebody is rational debate, and who won't accept anybody's explanation for anything. I accept that you read my words differently than what I intended by them and you are incapable of acknowledging that. But if all you want to do here is argue semantics separate from the thread topic, surely you can find some other place to do that.
Foxfyre said:
Quote:I'm arrogant enough to want the thread to stay on track and not be sidetracked by the trolls who come in here with the intention of making trouble, who think attacking somebody is rational debate, and who won't accept anybody's explanation for anything.
Classic cognitive dissonance - without the cognitive part.
US participation in Indochina began with the Truman Administration, then Eisenhower Presidency orchestrated further involvement with the US financing 80% of the cost of the fight to keep Ho Chi Mihn at bay and thwart his winning any elections, instead offering puppet presidents. It became an albatross around Johnson and Mcnamara's neck, and we'll never know if Kennedy would have taken the same route. I rather doubt it.
snood wrote:Foxfyre said:
Quote:I'm arrogant enough to want the thread to stay on track and not be sidetracked by the trolls who come in here with the intention of making trouble, who think attacking somebody is rational debate, and who won't accept anybody's explanation for anything.
Classic cognitive dissonance - without the cognitive part.
Well, some of our definitions of both 'classic' and 'cognitive' do apparently differ. I wonder if you agree that a thread can be sidetracked by trolls who intend to make trouble and/or who think attacking somebody is rational debate?
I believe that John McCain is more closely aligned with the conservative base than any of the strident commentariate who get most of the headlines. Evangelical Christians are a large voting block, and can't be ignored in a close race, but they are not the base. The real base is far more moderate in religion and economics. Reagan has become a Party icon, and with some justification. The nation and the Party had hardly recovered from revelatory shocks of the Nixon Presidency, when Americans chose to elect a simple, but virtuous man named Jimmy Carter. An admirable human being, but a political disaster for the nation. Regan's administration regained the respect of our enemies the day he took the oath. Reagan's economics were laughed at, but reversed trends that clearly were leading to major problems. The U.S. military finally began to recover from setbacks associated with the Vietnam war. Reagan's Star Wars Initiative was the nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union and led finally to the end of the Cold War and Balance of Terror. All mighty fine and admirable accomplishments.
The thing is that those accomplishments weren't the result of radical Christian theology, or increased social entitlement programs, or a bloated bureaucracy. Those accomplishments resulted from policies that increased the credibility and capability of the U.S. military. The economy prospered, because more money was left in the pockets of those who earned it rather than sending the money to Washington to fill the pockets of others. Reagan may have been more religious than Jefferson, but probably not by much. The people who elected Reagan, the people he communicated his vision to so well weren't the radicals, but main-street Americans. The generally apolitical center elected Reagan, and it was the center who mostly prospered under his administration.
Its a different time, and John McCain isn't Ronald Reagan. However, McCain's appeal is, like Reagan's, to the middle of the political spectrum. And, that's were the focus must be if the Party is to prevent the Executive from falling into the hands of those whose political philosophy is antithetical to our own.
Foxfyre wrote:snood wrote:Foxfyre said:
Quote:I'm arrogant enough to want the thread to stay on track and not be sidetracked by the trolls who come in here with the intention of making trouble, who think attacking somebody is rational debate, and who won't accept anybody's explanation for anything.
Classic cognitive dissonance - without the cognitive part.
Well, some of our definitions of both 'classic' and 'cognitive' do apparently differ. I wonder if you agree that a thread can be sidetracked by trolls who intend to make trouble and/or who think attacking somebody is rational debate?
Yeah, I know what you mean - it's just horrible. Good thing you avoid doing that, huh?
Asherman wrote:I believe that John McCain is more closely aligned with the conservative base than any of the strident commentariate who get most of the headlines. Evangelical Christians are a large voting block, and can't be ignored in a close race, but they are not the base. The real base is far more moderate in religion and economics. Reagan has become a Party icon, and with some justification. The nation and the Party had hardly recovered from revelatory shocks of the Nixon Presidency, when Americans chose to elect a simple, but virtuous man named Jimmy Carter. An admirable human being, but a political disaster for the nation. Regan's administration regained the respect of our enemies the day he took the oath. Reagan's economics were laughed at, but reversed trends that clearly were leading to major problems. The U.S. military finally began to recover from setbacks associated with the Vietnam war. Reagan's Star Wars Initiative was the nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union and led finally to the end of the Cold War and Balance of Terror. All mighty fine and admirable accomplishments.
The thing is that those accomplishments weren't the result of radical Christian theology, or increased social entitlement programs, or a bloated bureaucracy. Those accomplishments resulted from policies that increased the credibility and capability of the U.S. military. The economy prospered, because more money was left in the pockets of those who earned it rather than sending the money to Washington to fill the pockets of others. Reagan may have been more religious than Jefferson, but probably not by much. The people who elected Reagan, the people he communicated his vision to so well weren't the radicals, but main-street Americans. The generally apolitical center elected Reagan, and it was the center who mostly prospered under his administration.
Its a different time, and John McCain isn't Ronald Reagan. However, McCain's appeal is, like Reagan's, to the middle of the political spectrum. And, that's were the focus must be if the Party is to prevent the Executive from falling into the hands of those whose political philosophy is antithetical to our own.
It's really hard to argue with any of this. So what do you think is the primary reason the GOP lost the confidence of the base sufficiently to hand Congress over to the Democrats in 2006? Or what did the Democrats do that looked so much more attractive?
Or am I missing the boat entirely here?
snood wrote:Foxfyre wrote:snood wrote:Foxfyre said:
Quote:I'm arrogant enough to want the thread to stay on track and not be sidetracked by the trolls who come in here with the intention of making trouble, who think attacking somebody is rational debate, and who won't accept anybody's explanation for anything.
Classic cognitive dissonance - without the cognitive part.
Well, some of our definitions of both 'classic' and 'cognitive' do apparently differ. I wonder if you agree that a thread can be sidetracked by trolls who intend to make trouble and/or who think attacking somebody is rational debate?
Yeah, I know what you mean - it's just horrible. Good thing you avoid doing that, huh?
In all honesty Snood, I absolutely try not to be either a trouble maker or direct ad hominem attacks at other members as a matter of personal policy. Will I sometimes respond in kind when other members do not extend that same courtesy? Yeah. I admit I do.
I believe you won't find any circumstance EVER where I entered a thread and took an immediate personally directed jab at somebody though.
Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Fox - You're doing it again...
Foxfyre wrote:Note this does not have to automatically assume anybody did anything wrong. It only begs the question of how the base became alienated.
Foxfyre wrote:...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.
Red added for emphasis.
Nice try with the introduction of the phrase "alienation." The fact is you specifically asked "what went wrong."
You can back pedal all you like. I'm not letting you off the hook. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
T
K
O
I suggested that allowance for figure of speech applies here. "Where you/I/we/they went wrong" is NOT the same thing as doing something wrong.
Uh huh, and water is very dry.
Just as I thought, your too arrogant to admit what you've done.
T
K
O
No TKO. I'm arrogant enough to want the thread to stay on track and not be sidetracked by the trolls who come in here with the intention of making trouble, who think attacking somebody is rational debate, and who won't accept anybody's explanation for anything. I accept that you read my words differently than what I intended by them and you are incapable of acknowledging that. But if all you want to do here is argue semantics separate from the thread topic, surely you can find some other place to do that.
I addressed your first post with a recent post of yours. If anyone has derailed the thread it's you. Given the nature of this thread, many of my very fair questions have gone unanswered. It's more than annoying.
T
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Fox - You're doing it again...
Foxfyre wrote:Note this does not have to automatically assume anybody did anything wrong. It only begs the question of how the base became alienated.
Foxfyre wrote:...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.
Red added for emphasis.
Nice try with the introduction of the phrase "alienation." The fact is you specifically asked "what went wrong."
You can back pedal all you like. I'm not letting you off the hook. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
T
K
O
I suggested that allowance for figure of speech applies here. "Where you/I/we/they went wrong" is NOT the same thing as doing something wrong.
Uh huh, and water is very dry.
Just as I thought, your too arrogant to admit what you've done.
T
K
O
No TKO. I'm arrogant enough to want the thread to stay on track and not be sidetracked by the trolls who come in here with the intention of making trouble, who think attacking somebody is rational debate, and who won't accept anybody's explanation for anything. I accept that you read my words differently than what I intended by them and you are incapable of acknowledging that. But if all you want to do here is argue semantics separate from the thread topic, surely you can find some other place to do that.
I addressed your first post with a recent post of yours. If anyone has derailed the thread it's you. Given the nature of this thread, many of my very fair questions have gone unanswered. It's more than annoying.
T
K
O
What fair question addressed to me that isn't a veiled or overt ad hominem assertion and that is related to the topic has been ignored? If I did so, it was unintentional and would be happy to address it now to the best of my ability. (It is easy to miss a post here and there on a fast moving thread, especially if those who are attempting to disrupt the topic interject a lot of posts into it. I do not intend to overlook any serious point of view however.)
Question below...
QUESTION: What is conservative about what the republican party promotes?
Question above...
T
K
O
Re: AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND
duplication of my post deleted for space...
Foxfyre wrote:Diest TKO wrote:From this thread's original post; YOUR post...
Foxfyre wrote:It has been widely speculated that President Bush and the GOP fell into widespread disfavor and lost majority control of Congress when they abandoned basic conservative principles.
It is a given that most American liberals didn't like President Bush to begin with and didn't vote for Republicans for Congress either. Therefore, it can be concluded that the GOP lost power when it violated those issues most important to their base generally imbedded in an ideology known as modern Conservatism.
As a replacement for the "Bush aftermath" thread which is drawing to a close, perhaps this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.
Above in red.
Your statement directly offers a distinction between the GOP's actions and what ideal conservative philosophy would dictate.
Foxfyre wrote:They are like those on the Iraq thread who cannot (or will not) distinguish between reality and intent and/or cannot separate what is from what was.
Oh so liberals have it wrong? And you have it right? Well what are you? A Conservative? A Republican? Both?
You're talking yourself in circles.
What is it?
A) The GOP has made bad choices by abandoning the principles of conservatism. The actions of modern Republicans is not representitive of Conservative philosophy. There is nothing wrong with conservative policy making.
or
B) The GOP acts in line with conservative principles. There is no distinction btween the ideology and the actions of the elected leaders.
You can either defend conservatism, and agree the GOP has been doing it wrong, or you can defend the GOP.
What is flawed: The GOP or the conservative political philosophy?
Foxfyre wrote:...this thread could be a place where we could discuss where conservatives got it right, where we went wrong, what we need to do to regain the confidence of the Conservative base, and other GOP/Conservative issues.
That was the point right? Sounds like you weren't prepared to hear "what went wrong." You should learn when to pick your battles, and eat some humble pie.
Time to pick.
K
O
Let's review:
Modern Conservatism is a grandchild of classical liberalism. If you can't define classical liberalism, it would help if you would bone up. It bears little resemblance to modern liberalism.
Neoconservatism is something different from modern conservatism/classical liberalism though there are some shared values within the two ideologies.
The GOP has generally had more conservatives/classical liberals and neoconservatives among its ranks than do the Democrats, but all Republicans are not conservatives and all conservatives are not Republicans. Nevertheless, it is widely believed that when the GOP abandoned its conservative principles, it did alienate itself from its conservative base which was an important part of its constiuency.
The Democratic party generally has more liberals in it than does the GOP but all Democrats are not liberals and all liberals are not Democrats. Nevertheless, the Democrats cannot afford to alienate their liberal base any more than the GOP can afford to alienate their conservative base.
Asherman offered an excellent discussion on how both parties wind up not all that extreme in any direction but both govern from a more moderate and/or centrist position though the Democrats will more often be left of center and the GOP will more often be right of center.
And allowing some license for figures of speech, my original thesis was to discuss what the GOP did to alienate its conservative base and what, if anything, it can do to regain the confidence of that base.
Note this does not have to automatically assume anybody did anything wrong. It only begs the question of how the base became alienated.
This is a subject that interests me and I thought might interest some others if the ad hominem bashers, trolls, idiots, exercises in futility, and the little toadies without any original thoughts of their own but who pile in on top of the bile will allow such a discussion to take place.
I think participants need be neither Republican nor conservative to join in such a discussion and, indeed, it would be more constructive to have many points of view offered.
Your reply avoided answering my questions. I have highlighted in green what I wish to be answered.
T
K
O
Questions TKO requested that I answer:
Quote:Oh so liberals have it wrong? And you have it right? Well what are you? A Conservative? A Republican? Both?
I didn't assign good, bad, indifferent to either conservatives or liberals and that was not what I had in mind with the thesis of this thread. The closest I have come to criticism of anything is a) noting the rudeness of the usual trolls and b) noting my opinion of the propensity of liberals (on this thread) to not deal with anything at face value but rather they draw ad hominem assumptions and/or reword comments into something easier to criticize or attack. This was one of the traits Savage identified in his assessment of "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder".
Quote:You're talking yourself in circles.
What is it?
A) The GOP has made bad choices by abandoning the principles of conservatism. The actions of modern Republicans is not representitive of Conservative philosophy. There is nothing wrong with conservative policy making.
or
B) The GOP acts in line with conservative principles. There is no distinction btween the ideology and the actions of the elected leaders.
You can either defend conservatism, and agree the GOP has been doing it wrong, or you can defend the GOP.
What is flawed: The GOP or the conservative political philosophy?
Being a conservative, I do not believe modern conservative principles are flawed in any significant sense. I have considered that the GOP may have abandoned enough of those principles in recent years to sufficiently antagonize its conservative base so it lost Congress in 2006 and several other non-congressional contests as well. So far, none of the other conservatives on this thread have presumed to agree with me on that, however, and different factors have been pointed out, so I think there is plenty of room to continue the discussion.
I think if the GOP had consistently acted in line with modern conservative principles it would not have been losing elections.
Did I leave anything out?
However, the point of the conservative philosophy is not to simply win elections, it's a means to best govern correct?
If you, a conservative, notice that the GOP is not promoting conservative ideals, then isn't the GOP simply not a conservative body?
Having said that, even if you believe in one set of ideas, doesn't comprimise have to work it's way into the equation?
Example: A purely socialistic nation would fail, however it does not mean that using some socialistic ideas in a democracy such as the US is a bad thing. Example - public education.
Example: When Hong Kong was gien back to Communist China, China wanted to keep the bussinesses there, so they became a little flexible with the rigid ideas of communism and made room for some capitolistic ideas. Even in China, you can find capitolism.
No political landscape is ever going to be purely of one ideology.
I do agree with Asherman's point about "moderate" and "centrist" being the true distinctions in political ideas. I do not however think that the distinctions line up neatly with the main two political parties.
T
K
O
Foxfyre wrote:Did I leave anything out?
Just one...
Diest TKO wrote:Question below...
QUESTION: What is conservative about what the republican party promotes?
Question above...
T
K
O
However, I think you have begun to answer it partially.
I'd like to hear how you think a pure conservative would address the following, and if it differs from the republican ideas.
-Job outsourcing
-Abortion
-Capitol Punishment
-Social Security
-Corporate crime
-Fixing Public Education
-Torture
Thank you.
K
O
Diest TKO wrote:However, the point of the conservative philosophy is not to simply win elections, it's a means to best govern correct?
If you, a conservative, notice that the GOP is not promoting conservative ideals, then isn't the GOP simply not a conservative body?
I have been pretty specific that all members of the GOP are not conservative nor are all conservatives members of the GOP. So the issue of whether the GOP is or is not a conservative body is probably moot. I do believe that conservatives make up a significant part of the GOP base, much more than they do in the Democratic Party.
Quote:Having said that, even if you believe in one set of ideas, doesn't comprimise have to work it's way into the equation?
For me the whole purpose of debate (in real life) is to find the common ground when it is necessary or useful to do so. Generally in such negotiations, the best outcome is that everybody be able to win enough points to feel they got a satisfactory deal in the final decision. I wish more people understood that concept instead of feeling that there has to be a winner and a loser, a good guy and a bad guy, a right and a wrong, etc.
At the same time, while probably most things can be negotiated between reasonable people, everything isn't going to be subject to reasonable compromise though and there will be those issues in which there are clear winners and clear losers and issues in which somebody is going to be disappointed or angry whichever way something is decided.
Quote:Example: A purely socialistic nation would fail, however it does not mean that using some socialistic ideas in a democracy such as the US is a bad thing. Example - public education.
This is one area where there should be legitimate debate, however. Many feel that socialized schooling has failed to provide the best possible education for the children--I think many conservatives are on that side. Others think to turn the schools back to the communities to manage would be devastating--I think more liberals might be on this side. Still others occupy a middle ground with one foot on each side. There are many such issues in which conservatives think the government is not the best manager of the public interest.
Quote:Example: When Hong Kong was gien back to Communist China, China wanted to keep the bussinesses there, so they became a little flexible with the rigid ideas of communism and made room for some capitolistic ideas. Even in China, you can find capitolism.
Thomas Sowell once said: "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." In no place has this been more evident than in Communist China....until....the government relaxed some of its stranglehold on indiividual initiative and free enterprise and China is prospering. None of the doom and gloom forecasts for Hong Kong have come to pass purely because of China's unexpected hands off policy. While there may seem to be exceptions now and then, it seems in general that the more capitalism and free trade is encouraged, the more prosperous a society becomes. Capitalism and free trade are modern conservative principles. The mystery is why any government would not arrange for there to be more of it.
Quote:No political landscape is ever going to be purely of one ideology.
Maybe. There have been some that look 100% totalitarian socialism. In almost every case the people are mostly poor and oppressed.
Quote:I do agree with Asherman's point about "moderate" and "centrist" being the true distinctions in political ideas. I do not however think that the distinctions line up neatly with the main two political parties.
That neither govern from the extreme, I agree. I also don't see it as being all that neat as I think the Democrats lean mostly left of center except for a few exceptions; and I think the GOP is more likely to lean right of center, again with exceptions. Trying to sort it all out issue by issue, it can get pretty messy.
