@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote::"I think one thing that most separates Modern Amnerican Conservatives from Modern American Liberals is that Conservatives can so much better articulate WHY they believe what they believe. Many MALs don't seem to be able to able to do that and rather attack the messenger or make some kind of 'blind faith' remark. This much reinforces my opinion that the MACs hold the much more defensible position. "
I somewhat disagree but it does involve some nuance, which I believe you are very familiar with. Surely you will grant that overall and generally speaking liberals are just as intelligent as us (or, alternatively, MAC's are just as intelligent as liberals). Given your observation of liberal parsimony RE arguments put forward to sustain their beliefs, this might suggest leaving us with an initiative problem or a paradigm differential compared to conservative demonstrative efforts to explain their own beliefs. Either Liberals are simply intellectually lazy or their beliefs are so important to them (because they are concerned about having a certain type of fair or just society) that they cannot be abandoned. [All politicians at state and federal levels are exempt to this reasoning because a great many of these are careerists and their actions and so called ‘beliefs’, which often change, are informed by a basic instinct of political survival.]
If we use the Lazy argument we may then point to political influence as an additional factor. You and I have freely admitted that we were once (actually ‘born’) Democrats. We changed that position, but that change, I would hope, was not due to some sudden epiphany or morphological event. It came over time influenced by how we perceived our world and what events/people/conditions produced those perceived results. But the term Lazy must really be replaced by the term unmoved or even unconcerned. Many voters feel little of such political pressure upon their thinking (This is not to denigrate. One of the purposes of representative government is to free people up to make individual choices that have an affect on their own lives while, not giving up their constitutional freedoms, allowing government to house keep via decisions RE the general welfare). These voters may even have decided that there is only one issue important to them like, perhaps, public education stasis or change. This applies to both sides of the isle. Simply, it is easier to vote straight columns of either party, perhaps assuming that if that party they agree with on that one important issue has it right then it probably has it all right.
However, the really interesting and challenging liberals are those (like here on A2K) that actually take the time to engage the other side. I have mentioned the concept of ‘The Belief in the Belief' that I have encountered reading about the development of religion in an evolutionary context. Perhaps this can be applied to political thought. Speaking about religion and political thinking in the same vein, it is sometimes very important that the whole of those concepts found in the 'Belief ' be maintained. That is: it is not as important to believe so much in each and every tenet or even strictly follow them as it is to espouse such overall belief. This, since, society or peers ,via ostracization, insist upon it. Darwin even mentioned this importance when he agreed that (I paraphrase) " it is reasonable to expect that those groups working together will be more successful that those whose disposition so precludes such cooperation". What is important is the overarching concept that binds the group together and allows it to face real challenges, especially to "The Belief". This is, of course applicable to both Liberals and Conservatives.
In summary it seems demonstrable, on this thread, that conservatives do attempt to, not only back up their concepts, but thereby, to convince others with that info. Liberals, not so much so, their arguments seem to fall short. Setanta may, of course, be correct: “JM may be self deluded”. But of course, my own judgment on this is, and even those above comments are, rightly suspect.
But perhaps you have a different or somewhat similar opinion. So I would again ask any one (if you have not already) to:
1. State either your party affiliation or philosophy regarding how the American people should govern themselves. If not a government that must answer to the people than state what form of government America should pursue and why it would be a good course for America.
2. State what you feel are the core principles of such a government or governing philosophy, not unlike Fox's proposed list of Constitution Party Principles or even said definition of Classical Liberalism.
3. Optional: Use those principles as an argument for and to enable those following them to propose solutions to various issues like immigration, taxes, SS, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. Pick any number or combination thereof, or just one issue, and show how that guiding principle would work in the real world.
4. Lastly there is one optional requirement that all solutions using your principle(s) must be paid for as by the industry of only the American people and all solutions must be viewed by all other nations as financially viable (Long term solution methods may include long term loans and such but must encompass all such consequences such as dollar devaluation, and total U.S. debt). Specific dollar amounts are not necessary but proposals must always result in longtime American solvency and therefore must balance incoming revenues with outgoing payments, just like we all must do in our personal lives. This section might also include comments and evidence as to incentives or disincentives to individuals and private enterprises. (Example: Given: Health Care for all those who don't presently have it. Solution: Market based solution with various entities competing for those dollars, some of those supplied by government most not. Government gets those dollars by...)
JM
