DB: Why Democrats Are Smiling

[Burgold]

Roger that - then Obama is a fiscal conservative -- even more conservative than Bush?

Right now, Obama is an incomplete, but if we were to grade him so far... yeah, I'd say he was in the Bush.

I'm hopeful (not very hopeful... okay, barely flickering sparks of hope) that the first year of Obama was like this.

Firefighter Obama is called in to address a forest fire if he doesn't do something immediately with the drought and strong winds people are saying the entire thing is going up. He decides to blow up the fire. Uses fire to fight fire and snuff out the oxygen. He sets his explosives and boom (stimulus).

Today, the fire is still smoldering and sparking up in a number of places, but we don't need the gas and explosives anymore what we need is shovels, dirt, sand, and water. Will, fireman Obama change tactics or will he continue with the dramatic stuff. My dying hope is that he will and Congress will try to show tremendous restraint and let the fire die and allow for some natural growth before going with the chemical solutions again.

Unfortunately, in the last 20 years our government has shown little history of being able to control any of its impulses or largess. So, eventually Obama may be written about economically in the same terms as a Bush fire.

[NavyDave]

Based on evidence of the Bush, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan Administrations being fiscally responsible is definately a liberal position. So yes, you have at least one liberal tendency.

So you are lumping a modern day Conservative President Reagan, with two Moderate Republicans and a Liberal forced to become a triangulating moderate Democrat after the 1994 Congressional elections??

I guess way back in the olden days retired Democrat Zell Miller would be considered a liberal but he was definitely viewed as a conservative today.

[isle-hawg]

Unfortunately, in the last 20 years our government has shown little history of being able to control any of its impulses or largess.

That is the root problem IMHO right there. DEMS and REPS are both guilty IMO just borrowing and wasting money on different pet projects as I see it.

The current parties as I see it should be labeled the Socialists and the Big Corporation Socialist pandering parties as these are better descriptions than current Democrat and Republican IMO.

[Burgold]

I really don't disagree. There is some spending that I think is necessary, some that I ethically support (health/welfare with an asterick/disaster relief), and some that I can stomach because of potential long term benefits (science/research/education spending), but by and large, they are all scoundrels ripping us off and going on unacceptible spending binges.

[Predicto]

So you are lumping a modern day Conservative President Reagan, with two Moderate Republicans and a Liberal forced to become a triangulating moderate Democrat after the 1994 Congressional elections??

He was talking about deficit spending, a thing that conservatives laughably call a "liberal" tendency - even though all recent evidence shows that there is nothing conservative about them when it comes to spending money they don't have.

But you know that.

[Midnight Judges]

This thread illustrates perfectly why I don't use the terms liberal and conservative very often. They are convoluted and unclear. Some people go by old definitions, some people go with emotional definitions based on partisanship, and some people go with more modern definitions.

IMO, a political movement is defined by its actions. Conservatism is George W. Bush. Every conservative in this thread voted for him twice. Conservatism is Republicanism. There is no difference.

Same goes for liberalism and Democrats. Democrats actions define the liberal movement. Obama is liberalism.

[isle-hawg]

I really don't disagree. There is some spending that I think is necessary, some that I ethically support (health/welfare with an asterick/disaster relief), and some that I can stomach because of potential long term benefits (science/research/education spending), but by and large, they are all scoundrels ripping us off and going on unacceptible spending binges.

Again the root problem with the current ( 2 party) system. My thinking is most of us Amercians agree on ~90% or more of the issues. This status quo helps to keep us divided and distracted so we do not see the long term damage that is being inflicted if not to us directly our children and grandchildren.

The WW II era folks may have very well been the "greatest generation" due to their self sacrifice. What is our generation - the worst generation? Are we leaving things better or worse for our children and grand-children with what I think is reckless federal deficits, exodus of manufacturing overseas, reliance of foreign oil and lets not forget about the pyramid scheme called Social Security that will soon be upside down?

[Baculus]

This thread illustrates perfectly why I don't use the terms liberal and conservative very often. They are convoluted and unclear. Some people go by old definitions, some people go with emotional definitions based on partisanship, and some people go with more modern definitions.

IMO, a political movement is defined by its actions. Conservatism is George W. Bush. Every conservative in this thread voted for him twice. Conservatism is Republicanism. There is no difference.

Same goes for liberalism and Democrats. Democrats actions define the liberal movement. Obama is liberalism.

I have mentioned before that most Americans are a 'liberal" of one stripe or another, whether you are an traditional economic "laissez-faire" liberal or a social liberal. All those conservatives who rant about "liberalism" are trying to destroy their own country's history.

They are self-defeating and trying to cut off their nose to spite their face.

[Predicto]

The WW II era folks may have very well been the "greatest generation" due to their self sacrifice.

Ah, they weren't that great. Once Hitler was gone, they turned out to be the same selfish, stupid ****s that the rest of us are. :laugh:

[isle-hawg]

Ah, they weren't that great. Once Hitler was gone, they turned out to be the same selfish, stupid ****s that the rest of us are. :laugh:

I think the debt we continue to incur as a nation and pass on to following generations is immoral.

I do not go to a restaurant and leave my bill for the next guy who sits the table after I leave, I am confident you do not either. But our elected government is doing this type practice (has been for my lifetime) only worse leaving a much larger bill for future generations to pay. If we as a nation cannot afford to pay as we go how are future generations going to be able to pay our bill with interest - as well as their own bill?

[Predicto]

I think the debt we continue to incur as a nation and pass on to following generations is immoral.

I do not go to a restaurant and leave my bill for the next guy who sits the table after I leave, I am confident you do not either. But our elected government is doing this type practice (has been for my lifetime) only worse leaving a much larger bill for future generations to pay. If we as a nation cannot afford to pay as we go how are future generations going to be able to pay our bill with interest - as well as their own bill?

Oh, I agree. All I'm saying is that the "greatest generation" is/was just as guilty of this as the rest of us. No one lines up at the trough like retirees (while at the same time screaming that taxes are too high). Our retirees are among the richest segment of our population, yet they pay few taxes and get huge entitlements thrown at them, regardless of net worth.

[isle-hawg]

Oh, I agree. All I'm saying is that the "greatest generation" is/was just as guilty of this as the rest of us. No one lines up at the trough like retirees (while at the same time screaming that taxes are too high). Our retirees are among the richest segment of our population, yet they pay few taxes and get huge entitlements thrown at them, regardless of net worth.

Agree, and they are currently at the top of the national sanctioned pyramid scheme called Social Security. One of the reasons I am not a fan of AARP.

You are referring to the aftermath of the war, my point was during the war with rationing, war bonds and the draft people making sacrifices.

Back in those days many if not most sacrificed some (Kennedy-Bush families comes to mind at least for participation). The general populace were encouraged to do such things as raise "victory gardens" and forced to things such as gas stamps.

[skinfan133]

The term liberal actually predates "classic liberal" which came into existance in the 19th century. Thomas Jefferson was definitely a liberal. He was also an early example of a Classic Liberal.

As for TODAY's Liberal etc. That's a hollow question. All the issues have changed. But while the issues have changed, what made Jefferson a liberal, and what makes a liberal today hasn't changed.

A liberal is by definition someone who looks for a new solution to a problem. A conservative by definition is someone who looks for a previous known solution to a problem... someone who wants to go back to a solution which worked before.

That's the paradyme. The yin and yang of progress. All new ideas, democracy, republics, anti slavery, civil rights are tracked back to liberals. Conservatism is credited for ensuring what the liberals come up with, actually functions.

Locke could be considered the first true classical liberal (whether the term was around at the time is completely irrelevant), but more accurately was a contributing source of classical republicanism, which is the predecessor to classical liberalism. classical liberalism and classical republicanism are basically the same thing. classical republicanism established the social contract theory and the basic concepts of liberty that the founding fathers expanded on leading up to, during, and after the war for independence. Classical liberalism expanded on these tenets and incorporated free markets as a core principle of their ideology.

modern American "conservatism" and "liberalism" are direct ideological descendants of classical liberalism, as is American libertarianism more or less depending on who you talk to and how it is defined. (Foreigners often wonder why our politics are so heated since we are all "liberals." especially in Central and South America, people view all Americans as liberals. I use this to illustrate the point that the word has a myriad of meanings).

here is the point of my argument: Jefferson considered himself a liberal, as the term was known at the time. The meaning of the term 'liberal' today is different. Jefferson, as defined by today's political terms, would more accurately be described as a libertarian and/or a philosophical anarchist (someone who desires the absence of government, but realizes that due to human nature, governments must exist in order to protect liberty). Jefferson cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a liberal by today's standards since his views primarily focused on liberty and the limiting of government in order to protect it, which is not what liberals today believe (neither do 'conservatives')

as for your definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative':

-"liberal": an ideology concerned with the importance of individual freedom

-"conservative": stabilizing of traditions and institutions within a nation.

these are irrelevant definitions because they cover the blanket meanings of the terms within the entire English language. The definitions that are more pertinent to our discussion would be the ones defining conservative and liberal ideologies within the United States, which yours do not.

Why yes I do. Hamilton believed in a monarchy. Strong central authority.

Which branded him a conservative. Leader of the early conservatives in the United States and a quite effective and influencial one.

as was known at the time. again, irrelevant to what he actually believed. Just because he was known as a conservative then, does not mean he is a conservative by today's standards. Hamilton is in fact the ideological father of the left in this country. He was revered by the Republican Party during the 1800's and despised by the Jacksonians. You cannot possibly make the assertion that he is ideologically linked to conservatism as it is known in this county today.

Actually I think it is you who fundimentally miss the point. Issues aren't important in judging a person's historic politics. Because the issues change. you have no clue what Jefferson would have thought about the war in Iraq, abortion, healthcare reform, tax breaks for he wealthy, or massive deficits. All of the things that frame political views today.

Jefferson wrote and supported the declaration of independence. In his day that's ultra left liberal. In our day it's a value shared across the political spectrum. The only thing that is important is how jefferson formed his opinions, not what those opinions where based on his times.

you don't have to summarize Jefferson to me: he is after all my political idol and I have read and researched extensively about him and what he believed.

I'm also not stupid. I realize that Jefferson didn't have actual opinions about today's big issues, but you can't simply say that because of this, trying to view things from his frame of mind is useless, which is preposterous.

But lets get to the point: you responded to my comment about the Republican party needing a modern Jefferson simply to insinuate that Jefferson would favor liberals in today's political economy. I hope you can appreciate why I think you are being completely fallacious by doing so.

This country needs a Jefferson-like figure. I don't care what party he/she runs for, i will vote for them regardless.

[skinfan133]

Conservatism is Republicanism.

in the sense you are talking about there is no such thing as "Republicanism."

republicanism with a lower case 'r' are the values and beliefs associated with people who support a republican form of government.

sorry, pet peeves of a political science major

I have mentioned before that most Americans are a 'liberal" of one stripe or another, whether you are an traditional economic "laissez-faire" liberal or a social liberal. All those conservatives who rant about "liberalism" are trying to destroy their own country's history.

They are self-defeating and trying to cut off their nose to spite their face.

this is my point exactly! thank you Bac.

for the most part, we are all descended ideologically from classical liberalism. today's American conservatives and liberals are all "liberals." American liberals have taken the meaning of the word to describe their ideology, which isn't entirely accurate since American Liberalism is only a small fraction of the umbrella ideology of liberalism that is still considered radical in many parts of the world.

[88Comrade2000]

Two seats.

That's exactly correct. Traditionally they should loose seats, but not necessarily control.

Yes they are and most of them are in leadership. But I agree with you.

Oh, I meant flipping a seat from Repub to Dem. They did that in NY but wasn't the California seat already a Dem?

[JMS]

(Foreigners often wonder why our politics are so heated since we are all "liberals." especially in Central and South America, people view all Americans as liberals. I use this to illustrate the point that the word has a myriad of meanings).

First off I disagree that foreigners think of us as liberals. We are actually the most conservative country on earth, with the possible exception of certain dictatorships which still rely on death squads.

Most other democratic republics consider themselves socialists. Israel, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Korea all fall under this umbrulla. Even our libral democrats dont' consider themselves socialists, and are to the right of most other developed nations centers.

Also, I don't thikn their are a myriad of meanings. I think their is one meaning and a lot of people who don't know it so they make up their own.

[JMS]

here is the point of my argument: Jefferson considered himself a liberal, as the term was known at the time. The meaning of the term 'liberal' today is different. Jefferson, as defined by today's political terms, would more accurately be described as a libertarian and/or a philosophical anarchist (someone who desires the absence of government, but realizes that due to human nature, governments must exist in order to protect liberty).

So the guy who wrote about the teirany of the majority, the guy who penned our constitution which restricts the rights of the majorty and empowers and safeguards the rights of minorities; that's the guy who you think desired the absense of government? They guy who spent his entire life in government, working for government, and designing our government carefully not to express the uncontrolled view of the masses?

The guy who without the concent of congress doubled the size of the United States and trippled the national debt, endebted the nation for a generation. That's the guy you think "desired an absence of government".

I have no doubt that libertarians like to think they know Jefferson's mind. They wouldn't be nut jobs if they didn't have nutty ideas.

[JMS]

Jefferson cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a liberal by today's standards since his views primarily focused on liberty and the limiting of government in order to protect it, which is not what liberals today believe (neither do 'conservatives')

You are talking about Jefferson here right? The guy who struck a deal to move the capital from NY to Washington DC on land partially donated by his state. Jefferson who executed the luisiana purchase endebting the nation for a generation. Jefferson the man who struck a political bargain with Hamilton to create the first bank of the United States, removing much economic decision making from elected officials. Jefferson who oposed democracy, because the people couldn't be trusted to rule, in favor of a republic where the people voted for people who voted for their officials.

That's the guy you think didn't believe in government? The guy who established the first political dynasty in the United States which influenced every democratic president for the next 40 years.

[JMS]

these are irrelevant definitions because they cover the blanket meanings of the terms within the entire English language. The definitions that are more pertinent to our discussion would be the ones defining conservative and liberal ideologies within the United States, which yours do not.

They certainly do. A conservative position is to perserve what is existing, or to revert to what has worked in the passed. Take healthcare for example.

A Liberal position is to seak out a new solution, again take the healthcare debate.

this is the only definition which stands up to the test of time. It works for Kato the conservative Roman senator who oposed julius Ceasar. It works for Communists(left), Nazi's(Right), Czars(right), and Presidents. Across the span of time.

It tells you why Abraham Lincoln was a liberal, and why Goldwater was a conservative...

It's a non arbitrary definition to understand politcial ideology which historically has always been split across those who advocate for the new, and those who want to maintain what they have.

[JMS]

Hamilton is in fact the ideological father of the left in this country. He was revered by the Republican Party during the 1800's and despised by the Jacksonians. You cannot possibly make the assertion that he is ideologically linked to conservatism as it is known in this county today.

Yes I know. Hamilton has a bad name in history; so he must be on the left. Rediculous. Hamilton wanted to restore the monarchy in the United States, with Washington at it's head. Hamilton worked tirelessly to institute the best of British institutions in the United States. Hamilton clearly was trying to maintain traditional systems of government which he knew worked well from Great Britain. History considers him one of the few conservatives in the revolutionary fore fathers. A very influencial and brilliant man. A man who personally decided the Presidential election of 1800 in favor of Thomas Jefferson his liberal antithesis, a Man Hamilton had effectively dealt with on issues in prior years, such as the central bank.

but you can't simply say that because of this, trying to view things from his frame of mind is useless, which is preposterous.

Claiming Jefferson would align himself with the libertarians today, is preposterous. It's self absorbed anti intellectual nonsense.

But lets get to the point: you responded to my comment about the Republican party needing a modern Jefferson simply to insinuate that Jefferson would favor liberals in today's political economy. I hope you can appreciate why I think you are being completely fallacious by doing so.

It's silly to claim to know who Jefferson would support today. It's imposible to know if Jefferson could even comprehend the issues, or would value pertenant facts. All one can do is understand how Jefferson set about finding solutions in his day, and extrapolate. That and note that Jefferson considered himself a Liberal. Not because of his ideas, but because of how he sought solutions.

This country needs a Jefferson-like figure. I don't care what party he/she runs for, i will vote for them regardless.

Jefferson was a pretty good first term President. He was a pretty lousy second term president. He is best remembered for his vision and his effective use of the commnications media of the day, speaches and essays.

You can keep Jefferson. I personally think we need another Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt. Presidents who could stand up to the trusts which control so much of our government and economy.

[JMS]

Using this logic does this make me a liberal or conservative for wanting the govt to balance the ****ing budget and quit borrowing from the Chinese and printing up more money to pay the bills?

It makes you a conservative, The question is does it make you a Democrat or a Republican? It makes me a Democrat. I don't really think we have liberals persee in government anymore. The American political spectrum is squewed to the right. We have moderates and varying degrees of conservatives. The last true liberal American President was LBJ.... Before him FDR and Truman were both left leaning liberals.

Based on Webster's definition it may be liberal because the feds have been borrowing money throughout my lifetime (as the gold standard went out before I was born) and I want them to stop this practice even though it hasn't hurt YET.

The policy of running massive trade deficites actually started in the early 1970's.

It is true that new ideas, can become old ideas over time and that effects where ones solutions are judged on the political scale. It's one reason why it's kind of silly to deamonize folks on the moderate left or moderate right. New Ideas are not always bad, going back to known good solutions is actually often a very practical solution to problems. Lining up along political ideology independant of the issue is not reasonable. This is why traditionally both parties, republicans and democrate had both conservative and liberal wings. It's only just recently that the parties became so politically monolithic....

It's also true old ideas sometimes are more fantasy than recorded history. Take trade for example. The US has traditionally been a trade based country, but we never pursued unrestricted open trade policies historically as is advocated by conservatives.. We like all nations do today, traditionally protected our industries from foreign dumping through tarifs and taxes. But somehow our "history" of free trading has become a popular myth, and it's today a popular conservative policy.

Or is it conservative because I strive to live within my means (which has worked for me) and expect my government to do the same?

The entire big spending or frugal argument is not in my opinion valid. Both parties spend big and the conservative right spends more historically than anybody else. It really comes down to what you think we should be spending money on.

We've had the best luck budget spending wise by electing moderates to the Presidency and mixed party rule in congress.

[Burgold]

I don't really think we have liberals persee in government anymore.

Well, we still have Kucinich and his lovely wife.

[JMS]

Well, we still have Kucinich and his lovely wife.

Yes, sorry. I meant in influencial leadership roles in the party. they're are a few liberals kicking around here and there, like Kucinich, and former senator Ted Kennedy etc.

Back in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's liberals dominated politics in this country. Since LBJ they've been an endangered species.

After Watergate the Democratic party squeed to the right under Carter, and Ronald Reagan did the same but even more so to the Republican party. Liberals really have been politically isolated since the late 60's.

I don't think we've had a liberal President since LBJ for instance. Nixon was more liberal than Carter. Nixon's in with the right was his pedegreed anti communist stance. Carter was an evangelical conservative from Georgia. the Left wing of the Democratic party revolted under Carter. Clinton was a pragmatic centrist who supported nafta and proclaimed the era of big government was over. Neither Carter nor Clinton was a liberal.

To early to say about Obama, but I think most of his secretaries and appointments have been moderates or conservative. He seems more pragmatic than ideological based...

Believe it or not the most Liberal President since LBJ was probable George Bush Sr. He was a liberal Republican who Ronald Reagan selected to balance the ticket in 1980 after Gerald Ford turned him down. Bush, toed Reagan's line for eight years in office as part of his pre agreed upon job description as Reagans VP. Bush picked up Reagans' mantal and ran on a conservative platform for president in 88. Before hooking up with Reagan, Bush had a long history of liberal moderate positions. Like being pro choice.

[skinfan133]

JMS, I've always tried to be a civil debater of yours, but you're going off the deep end here. you are literally making stuff up. I have to go eat lunch and I have class at 1, but expect a more detailed response around 2-3 PM today.

I will say this in the meantime: I am an International Studies major at VMI (basically political science with a foreign language thrown in with international economics). I study politics and ideology and the history around it extensively. not only that, Jefferson is a political idol of mine, and I have researched his life on my own rather a lot. I spent litterally four or five hours comming up with that post of mine, because I was looking up what I was writting in my class notes and personal books. Consider for a moment that I am basing what I am saying on historical consensus and that I am not making any of this up.

I'll be back in a bit after class ends. for now, time to go enjoy the staples of the VMI dinning expirience

[JMS]

JMS, I've always tried to be a civil debater of yours, but you're going off the deep end here. you are literally making stuff up. I have to go eat lunch and I have class at 1, but expect a more detailed response around 2-3 PM today.

Civility in debate is always a winning policy. But claiming I'm making things up without even identifing which statement you think is in error is not civil, nor does it add to the debate. It's actually more of a personal attack.

not only that, Jefferson is a political idol of mine, and I have researched his life on my own rather a lot.

Jefferson is a pretty sad character historically. It's hard for me to believe anybody who has researched him could idolize him. He was a back stabing political foe, who by modern standers could have been shot for treason for his conduct in George Washington's administration. When Washington died, he left instructions one man was not to attend his funeral. That was his fellow virginian, Thomas Jefferson. The filandering, slave bedding, annonomous defamer of great men. There is a deuality to Jefferson which shows him to be a very tortured soul even acrosss the span of 200 years.

He was a gifted oritator who spoke powerfully and authoritatively about a direction for the country, but who lead a life dominated by shallow pety persuites and ego driven annonomous slanderous attacks on people who he publically called friend.

Consider for a moment that I am basing what I am saying on historical consensus and that I am not making any of this up.

I never thought you were making it up. I always believed you were parroting somebody else who made it up. It is not the consensus of historians that Thomas Jefferson was the father of the Libertarian movement in the United States. Fact is the Libertarians aren't really old enough to be thought of by historians at all. I would bet you can not find anybody other than a libertarian who would put forward that link between Jefferson, Nolan, and Hospers. The libertarians who can trace their movement back to the dawn of 1970 arbitrarily attribute their political believes to the founder and most infuencial early Democratic leader; Thomas Jefferson.

I'll be back in a bit after class ends. for now, time to go enjoy the staples of the VMI dinning expirience

Don't eat anything you can't identify.