Conservative?/Liberal?

I'm surprised you made that oberservation Setanta. No, I am not from Lusatia. I came up with that name quite a few years ago while looking for a unique internet cognomen. A few years later I came across Lusatia in an encyclopedia. Since then I've been expecting someone to ask about that, but you are the first.

Luck

P.S. Commie??? Anarchist???

I'm wondering why the poll lists "conservative" and "ultra-conservative" but only lists "liberal". Where's "ultra-liberal"?

Hell yeah! So do you dispute my take on yer politics Lusatian? ;-)

Aha! The gauntlet is thrown, sir! Your choice of weapons - broadsword or rapier!

Settles back to watch the show.........where's the popcorn?

I am liberal (in a sense originated in Europe) without any political affiliation.
This position places a higher value on the liberty of individuals and human rights. Typically against Nazi, Soviet-like socio-political systems.

Move over, bunny, and share the popcorn. Thomas, you don't have to go back as far as Jefferson--try Barry Goldwater--integrity and reason.

o.k.
i'll admit it.
i was thinking about Lusatian in the shower this morning


wondering if he really was Lucifer's Alsatian (which is how I always read his name - too much time with dog trainers)

Beth,

I was flattered till I heard the dog part.

Craven,

I found your dissection of my political views to be astute and generally on-the-mark. The one thing not mentioned that I feel does play an important role in my intellectual/political development is my fondness of pragmatism. I feel no political action should be made on an ideal, instead on a goal attainable by realistic and pragmatic steps.

Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality the cost becomes prohibitive.
William F. Buckley Jr.

idealism, like the North star, gives one a direction-not a destination.

So Attilla the Hun with green teeth and the ability for social tolerance (if not running with the barbarian hordes) is correct?

.

In Politics (and upon introspection, perhaps all of life) "pragmatic" and "practical" seem to be euphemisms for "my way".

E.g.

Person A: I like option X
Person B: Nah, because I am pragmatic I like option Y

The implication is that said option is the right one while the other isn't.

In political discussions I've come to accept the statement that one is pragmatic as a statement that one's choices are wise ones.

So it's kinda like saying "Yeah, my politics are based on being right".

Recently "pragmatic" also seems to imply militarism in choice of problem resolution.

Piffka quoted something wicked cool (from her hubby IIRC) that said that it's like a hammer in a toolbox.

"Pragmatic" seems to be "I like the big hammer (military) out of all the tools in the toolbox" these days.

Okay, Fedral...you had a really bad job.

Even I will acknowledge that cleaning puke out of urinals and off jon walls is not as ugly as digging among dead bodies.

I feel I've been forced into the liberals' camp by the extreme right, and the neo cons, usurping much of the political process. I spent most of my life believing a melded liberal/conservative outlook could produce a pragmatism capable of transcending political labels. I felt there could be, for instance, social activism, while at the same time maintaining the core idealized version of old traditional values. We could afford a balanced budget as well as a safety net for the poor. I believe in maintaining a strong military, but with a more subdued policy of where and when to pick a fight. Almost all of our wars had causes and consequences I cannot support. Despite my belief in a strong military I mailed back my draft card during Vietnam. This after being honorably discharged from the Navy. I believe in restrained capitalism, which is a form of socialist/conservative thinking. Etc. I've run out of time. But I think what I'm saying should be more than obvious.

Like Goldilocks, I'm 'just right'.

I would like to note that pragmatic means attempting to choose that which will work, as opposed to standing on principle, even in the face of the unreality of the application of one's principles--which gives rise to a lot of the ranting in politics. I am not, and never have been, militarist.

I believe that idealists base policys on the assumption that people will react in a way that they hope they will; whereas pragmatists base policys on the assumption that people will react in a way that the past has shown that they most probably will.

Very well put. Thomas Sowell would call these two groups those with the "anointed" vision of the world--people who believe they recognize realities not evident in the historical and factual record, and those with the "tragic" vision--those who believe they recognize the nature of the world as a place where every decision is one involving tradeoffs and who base their theories on what history and fact show us to be likely to work.

Affirmative action isn't based on how rich or poor you are, or where you come from, or how difficult your life is. It sets quotas for the amount of a skin color you let into your company. It also only applies to "majority minority" skin colors (if you're a pacific islander or Samoan or a poor white trailer park kid, you're out of luck.) This is discriminating - legally discriminating based on race which I don't think the government should be allowed to do after the civil rights amendment.

In addition to that, I think it hurts blacks/hispanics. It assumes they wouldn't be able to get the job anyways, and this makes for a double standard in the workplace.

I think if a person can't get a job based on race they should sue - but there should not be quotas for the number of a skin color you have to have in your business. Hiring should be based on who is qualified - if you are qualified and are not hired based on sex/religion/race/etc. then you should sue.

As an example of how deep affirmative action goes, my stepmother who worked in advertising had to hire a set number (usually 3/year) of locally owned and operated all-hispanic radio stations to run her advertisements. Hispanics were not her target market, and because the radio stations knew they were the only ones in town they charged ridiculous prices.

Another example is the quotas for college admission - in some schools the points for having dark skin outweigh having a good S.A.T. score. Having dark skin does not mean you had a disadvantaged life. A much clearer way of finding out whether or not you had a disadvantaged life would be to give extra points to people from low income areas/those who have low income.

I wouldnt mind a system of affirmative action that was based on, for lack of a better word, class rather than race.

Although I do think that a poor black will, again, have a harder time getting into jobs, schools, etc, than a poor white.

edgarblythe's position resonates with me.

I feel the assumptions of the right and the left both miss the mark, and there ought to be a third way, a politcal philosophy that combines the good parts of both without the ideological extremism. Centrist.

I think government has legitimate functions that must be funded -like defense, education, consumer protection, and public safety- and that, although capitalist models reflect human nature more accurately than socialist models, just governments must concern themselves primarliy with the welfare of the weak rather than the rights of the powerful. Liberal.

I believe an unfettered free market would result in a diminished quality of life for most of us, but an economy not based on a free market would be even more disastrous. Centrist.

I believe all federal programs should seek to interfere as little as possible with the dreams and ambitions of individuals, even if those dreams consist of nothing more than a desire for personal wealth. Conservative.

If the playing field was level, I would be an unapologetic conservative. But to be a conservative in the world we actually live in is an affront to decency. Liberal.