Has Compassionate Conservatism negated the Democrat Party?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Though we have entertained the difficulty of defining such broad terms as 'liberal' and 'conservative', I think we have working definitions or beliefs of the GOP and Democrat parties' as they have evolved.

IMO, one of the major reasons the Dems have been viewed as nothing more than the opposition is due to the GOP's adoption of Compassionate Conservatism--

Though the GOP's moves toward inclusiveness and working to improve ineffective social programs is not widely recieved yet (certainly not on A2K), it is increasingly difficult for the Dems to hang on to their reputation as the sole party looking out for the interests of the poor.

I think it would be interesting to discuss what individuals feel are the skeleton platforms of both parties--and see where the Dem/GOP Parties of the 21st century stands.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,030 • Replies: 16

No top replies

Compassionate Conservatism-- I have yet to see the compassionate side of conservatism. It is a nice slogan but that is about all it is. Sophia can you describe to me or show some evidence that affirms it's compassion. I believe one of the qualities lacking in this administration is compassion, possibly because as his father before him he has no concept of how the little people live and exist. That silver spoon that he was born with has kept him well insulated.

0 Replies

OK, au.

You don't have to buy into Compassionate Conservtivism to participte in the main thrust of the topic.

The Dem Party used to be heralded as the party of the poor or the working man. Lately, they've been the party of the opposition.

Have they lost their identity? Has their identity changed?

0 Replies

I think the identity of the Democratic party has been sent adrift. The programs put in place in the 40s, 50s and 60s were accepted and survived but since then many of them became bloated and those who became adults in the 60s, 70s and 80s (none of whom have things like the Depression or WWII to fall back on for memories of "the bad times".) came to resent the continuing growth of those programs.

The Republican party softened it's stance on many of the major issues through the 70s and 80s so they don't look so extreme any more.

The old-line Democrats keep trying to stick to what worked in years gone by but many are takling a pass on their message. They still have this symbiotic relationship with the Unions and such but I don't think the union rank and file follow orders any more and union strength has dwindled greatly over the last few decades.

All of that leaves the left more fractured than the right is at the moment. As much as many of them refuse to see it I still hold that Nader is what did in Gore. He did the exact same thing to Gore that Perot did to Bush 41 back in 1992. When that 3rd wheel starts drawing away enough of the radical fringe you go from a comfortable lead to a neck-and-neck race to loosing... The Democrats have to find a way to unite the "old-line" Dems and the disaffected Nader followers. That won't be easy to do. Both groups have very different ideas about how the world should work.

0 Replies

Sophia

Quote:

The Dem Party used to be heralded as the party of the poor or the working man. Lately, they've been the party of the opposition.

The party out of power is always the party of opposition. Were the republicans any less obstructive when the democrates reigned supreme. Politicians are by and large self serving.

0 Replies

Agree with a lot of fishin's comments.

The Republican party has held the line for as long as I can remember as being Capitalist--supporting business as the way to employ and enrich citizens--anti-Socialist and anti-communist--strong on defense--smaller govt programs--more individual responsibility. These are just the first things that come to mind.

When one thinks of the comparable Dem list (and I'm not trying to be negative; I admit to bias, but): weakened defense, large, unweildy govt programs, leaning Socialist, weakened business through taxes and over-regulation. Many years ago, they could claim they were the 'working man's party'. And, by working man, I refer to your average blue collar guy--not the Unions. I think, in light of the changes being made in the GOP, the Dems are having a hard time holding on to the only good thing they could claim.

I was wondering if we had someone, who could define a positive, appealing Dem party platform. Who are they now?

fishin's comments mirror my belief that they are at crossroads, and perhaps they are in search of a new identity.

0 Replies

I have always maintained that the key strength of the Dems has been their ability--with willing help from many in the media--to set the terms of debate in this country. This has for many years kept us focused on questions of whether--whether to protect the environment, help the poor, educate the children, heal the sick, ...--when the real questions are about how.

The difference between liberals and conservatives isn't that liberals want a clean environment and conservatives don't, the difference is in how we think you achieve a clean environment, what tradeoffs are acceptable, what realities must we live with, what costs are we willing to bear...

So, to answer your question, no, compassionate conservatism doesn't replace liberalism, it is simply an attempt to allow conservatives frame the terms by which conservatism is described. "Compassionate conservatism" is nothing new. Valuing individual liberty over government control has always been a measure of compassion. The only thing that has changed is that we allowed others to obscure that reality for a while.

0 Replies

That's a bit overly simplistic there Crunch. There are plenty of liberals that think with their brains and plenty of conservatives that allow their hearts to lead their minds.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

That's a bit overly simplistic there Crunch. There are plenty of liberals that think with their brains and plenty of conservatives that allow their hearts to lead their minds.

But conservative policies--on the whole--are not based on feelings and good intentions unchecked by reality. Likewise, liberal policies are rarely based on a reasoned consideration of the facts and real-world tradeoffs inherent in every decision.

Sure there are exceptions that prove the rule, but that just means Crunch's rule is spot-on.

0 Replies

Liberals think with their heart. This is OFTEN, and most always, to the detriment of the groups they are trying to help. Affirmative Action. Game. Minimum wage. Set. Clinton. Match.

Conservatives, on the other hand, think with their brain. We use facts to determine what's best for the world. That is our compassion.

Who's the better parent?

0 Replies

Scrat

Quote:

But conservative policies--on the whole--are not based on feelings and good intentions unchecked by reality.

I do not believe that to be true. If it were it is nothing to be proud of. Based on that statement Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid and all social programs should be disbanded. Come to think of it you may be correct.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

But conservative policies--on the whole--are not based on feelings and good intentions unchecked by reality. Likewise, liberal policies are rarely based on a reasoned consideration of the facts and real-world tradeoffs inherent in every decision.

Nonsense. The idea that government should be small is based on feelings in regard to the relationship between government and yourself (or myself..).

The idea that taxes should be minimal is based on feelings.

Tax cuts are based on good intentions (spurring the economy!) and many would say that the last 2 rounds of them have been unchecked by reality.

Name a Conservative policy and I'll name a feeling behind it.

The difference is that Liberal policy is based on Liberal feelings and Conservative policy is based in Conservative feelings. Both sides find the reasons to accept the policies they like and reject those they oppose.

The idea that liberals are all wimpering, simpering idiots that can't think their way out of a box is a nice way of demonizing the opposition but it is also a good way of convincing yourself that your own sides views are always better. That isn't exactly based in reality either.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

The idea that liberals are all wimpering, simpering idiots that can't think their way out of a box is a nice way of demonizing the opposition but it is also a good way of convincing yourself that your own sides views are always better. That isn't exactly based in reality either.

Can we agree that SOME fall into the category? Very Happy

0 Replies

McGentrix

Quote:

Quote:
fishin' wrote:
The idea that liberals are all whimpering, simpering idiots that can't think their way out of a box is a nice way of demonizing the opposition but it is also a good way of convincing yourself that your own sides views are always better. That isn't exactly based in reality either.

Can we agree that SOME fall into the category?

We can agree that there are people of all political stripes that fall into that category

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Scrat wrote:
But conservative policies--on the whole--are not based on feelings and good intentions unchecked by reality. Likewise, liberal policies are rarely based on a reasoned consideration of the facts and real-world tradeoffs inherent in every decision.

Nonsense. The idea that government should be small is based on feelings in regard to the relationship between government and yourself (or myself..).

The idea that taxes should be minimal is based on feelings.

Tax cuts are based on good intentions (spurring the economy!) and many would say that the last 2 rounds of them have been unchecked by reality.

Name a Conservative policy and I'll name a feeling behind it.

The difference is that Liberal policy is based on Liberal feelings and Conservative policy is based in Conservative feelings. Both sides find the reasons to accept the policies they like and reject those they oppose.

The idea that liberals are all wimpering, simpering idiots that can't think their way out of a box is a nice way of demonizing the opposition but it is also a good way of convincing yourself that your own sides views are always better. That isn't exactly based in reality either.

Well of course everything has feelings behind it. But you're taking it too far. The majority of our feelings are based on fact. The majority of liberal feelings are not. Affirmative action, on the other hand, has absolutely no fact behind it. It is 100% feelings.

0 Replies

I'm getting Crunch, though the broad statement--they are heart, we are head--does seem too much of a blanket statement, to me.

The Dems seem to go for the huge programs that feed and clothe the masses. They want to institute tougher regulations in business that help the worker, but hurt the business. The GOP sees the business as the provider for employees--and feels the ULTIMATE help for the employees is to aid the business, rather than demand hurtful concessions from it.

Higher minimum wage, time off for births--extended to a year, for men, and adoptions. Extending a businesses' fiscal responsibility to retired workers' health insurance... There are many more. These things are all good, and if it didn't hurt the business, I'd be all for them. But, Repubs tend to look forward and ask themselves, "What is the ULTIMATE outcome of these programs? Will it damage employers to the point it may put some out of business?--" And, if this happens, instead of several people having jobs, security and a work health insurance policy, they will need to get on the gov dole for a while.

I think generally, the Repubs seem less giving, when they are trying to prop up employment. In the long run, I think this is the best thing to do for everyone.

Think Crunch has a point.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Scrat wrote:
But conservative policies--on the whole--are not based on feelings and good intentions unchecked by reality. Likewise, liberal policies are rarely based on a reasoned consideration of the facts and real-world tradeoffs inherent in every decision.

Nonsense.

"Nonsense" back atcha... :wink:

fishin' wrote:

The idea that government should be small is based on feelings in regard to the relationship between government and yourself (or myself..).

No, the idea that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should be SMALLER than it currently is, is based on a strict reading of the CONSTITUTION (aka "THE LAW").

fishin' wrote:

The idea that taxes should be minimal is based on feelings.

The idea that INCOME taxes should be lower is based both on the fact that withholding lowers the velocity of the dollar, having a negative impact on GNP, and also based on the knowledge that the federal government should be doing less and be more efficient in what it does.

fishin' wrote:

Tax cuts are based on good intentions (spurring the economy!) and many would say that the last 2 rounds of them have been unchecked by reality.

Tax cuts are based on economic theory, and many would say that the last two rounds have already begun to show their effectiveness.

fishin' wrote:

Name a Conservative policy and I'll name a feeling behind it.

Simply doing so won't make the name valid.

fishin' wrote:

The difference is that Liberal policy is based on Liberal feelings and Conservative policy is based in Conservative feelings. Both sides find the reasons to accept the policies they like and reject those they oppose.

I'm sure there are some on each side that do some of this, but my brand of conservatism--the brand for which I am arguing--bases its decisions on a reasoned observation of available information and a strict reading of the Constitution. That is of course a perfection we don't reach, but that's the star by which I would have us sail.

fishin' wrote:

The idea that liberals are all wimpering, simpering idiots that can't think their way out of a box is a nice way of demonizing the opposition but it is also a good way of convincing yourself that your own sides views are always better. That isn't exactly based in reality either.

It is also a fabrication of yours, and not something I have claimed.

0 Replies

Has Compassionate Conservatism negated the Democrat Party?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know