Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

I happen to think it's impossible to define all a party's policies as short or long term. That is simply not a consistent factor in either party.

Early on the thread:


Later on the thread:


Ergo, following the lines of my definition, Scrat is not a conservative, but a reactionary.

Craven--
I think almost every policy can lend itself to long- and short- term analysis.

I think defense is a long-term/short-term issue.
Welfare was, as well. AA. Education. Medicaid.
Unions. Strong business vs more regulations/concessions to employees...

I believe liberals want to give directly to the people, while conservatives want to arrange a SIM city approach that will sustain the people over the long term. One of the major reasons I am a conservative--is I don't think the constant concessions directly to the people are sustainable over the long term. We will run out of funding and collapse. I lived through the Carter recession, and it sucked. This is why conservatives are always denigrating liberals for "throwing money at all our problems". It is considered a short-term solution that cannot be sustained for the long-term.

One issue--Conservatives for strong business countered by liberals for the environment is a heated debate, where I think it is good that both sides duke it out on a regular basis. The environment is THE longest term issue--and conservatives are more interested in a strong economy than they are in our environment. So it seems to me.

Yes, that's why I don't think entire parties can be deemed "nearsighted" as it will differ from each policy.



That's a silly accusation and a common one for each side. Each party just "throws" money at different programs and mocks the other for what they want to spend it on.

Case in point: If you don't like the war in Iraq it's "throwing money"
If you don't like social programs it's "throwing money". If you don't like the tax cut it's "throwing money" at the problem.

More of the more obvious ploys in politics is to claim that the money is being "thrown" and it is almost always just a rhetorical tool of no value.

And this is evidence of "black and white" thinking how, exactly? I am suspicious of the "research" and wrote that it does not accurately reflect my point of view. I would find no more value in such "research" were it done on liberals. The "results" seem biased in the language chosen and the method of presentation. I note that they seem to have found no "positive" associations, only "negative" ones. Why?

Anyhow, you are welcome to disagree with my comments, but your argument that they indicate "black and white" thinking doesn't fly. (Perhaps the "black and white" thinking was your own?)

Just one example of the bias of this "research"...

Conservatives do not oppose extending rights and liberties to anyone, rather they oppose the inequality that results from extending special rights to specific groups and not to others. This is evidence of their support for EQUALITY, not a "penchant for accepting inequality".

If any group is not being treated equally under the law, that is an issue for enforcement. The Constitution applies equally to gays and lesbians, they do not need new, special laws to give them what they already have. That some neanderthals fail to understand this is not reason to write new laws to give additional protections to this group. Inequality created with the best of intentions does not magically become equality.

Maybe we need to take a phrase I heard and tweak it:

"Conservatives support the status quo when it helps to afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable"

We'll be discussing you in negative fashion at out weekly Beat the Poor, Kick Some Dogs meeting.

(The Liberals let you keep those guns?)

The guns are prolly pointed at a con..

nemind, why do I fuel fires..

Because, you (like all other mins) are evil!

Please excuse me. Its time to starve a baby.

You're good, Sofia!

The feminists will be mad at ye. They invented wimmin as a way to be rid of "men" from the word woman. If you start calling men 'min' then they might have to start calling themselves 'breasted' or somesuch..

[size=7]Why are they circling me? What's whith the knives? Oh not the balls again![/size]

Monger--
Think yew!!

Craven--
I am always at odds with the wimmin. I shall prevail. This is MORE PC!!! Its everywhere!

"Why are they circling me? What's whith the knives? Oh not the balls again!"

Don't worry, Craven, nobody wants your gonads today.

Once, on Abuzz, Acquiunk posted his impression of the differences or defining qualities of conservatives and liberals. It was simply the most unbiased of all such statements I have ever read. I'm hoping he will drop in on this discussion.

To those wondering why I included the post from "Rush Limbaughtomy", it is because it is consistent with the purpose of his site - drive 'em crazy, and perhaps he means the reactionary folks. It does work, you know. And it was germaine to the discussion because posts have been flying through with all these built-in assumptions, myths or prejudices. It is merely pointing up what is the chasm between sets of political belief.

I think fear is the number one issue that defines one's politics if one is a reactionary. I also agree that psychological factors particularly weigh in with an individual.

What's the big thing we aren't talking about here? It's not the "throwing away" of money, it is fear of the loss of money.

For liberals, too often, they are considered to be "able" to be benevolent because they don't have money - an amazing stereotype. Mostly liberals want to have jobs, and they tend to speak of jobs and decent living conditions, not just of loss of money. On the other hand, conservatives are perceived often to have money or to have made "wise decisions" to preserve their money and increase it by any means, and therefore have more say in determining who else, besides them, is entiled to jobs and decent living conditions.

There we slide into the part of the politics that is the us/them most critical: some folks think that they have more wisdom to decide for others how they must live for fear of monetary loss to themselves(definitely social Darwinism). The other side tends to say "where you walk, so walk I" and therefore encourages assistance to others way beyond what those of the status quo maintainers are comfortable with. Sounds like "grasshopper and ant" to me, most times. But not so simple is it.

You may draw out any part of what I say to disagree with - that's not important to hop on just a detail when it's the broader picture considered here. My point is, fear and negative factors DO play a big role in real life and real politics. What adaptations people make determine their long-term survival.

Just when I finish reading other threads, I realized that there are three threads in particular right now that are discussing fear, economics and also "gambling on terror". For those insterested here they are:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9974&highlight=

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9980&highlight=

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9976&highlight=

If money was not the biggest concern or "fear", I'd be hard put to figure what another candidate would be. And this is all from the so-called Conservatives? Whoa!

Of course they do, but for both sides of the political spectrum and all points in between. Likewise hope, morality and lofty ideals also play a role in shaping a person's politics, but I note these were not considered in the "research" being discussed here.

Hoping Acquiunk will grace us with that passage of which Rog speaks.

I'm off to foreclose on a Senior Citizens' center. Be back soon.

LOL, Sofia, I've got a stick and a baby seal.
How will you use the stick: beat the seal to death or impale it?