Within the worst of conservatism there may be reliance upon having some sort of socialist enemy, some sort of scary liberal changes, some sort of scapegoat.

But then there is the best of conservatism.

The worst of liberalism isn't pretty, either, but there is the best of liberalism.

I wish people would try better to seek out, draw out, encourage the best that others may have to offer, otherwise it's just people pointing out the worst that they see in each other.

tip:

The answer is you do this between patients so you can put off your paperwork.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion....

 

Thank you, TENAC, and LISTEN08, for your take, your contributions, on this question of 'bringing out the best'

I am all for the BEST of what conservatism has to offer.

However, I do not wish to see America lead ONLY by conservatives/conservatism, I do not want to see the BEST of what liberalism has to offer fade away.

Ah, but I see that conservatism can be an 'ism', that is, and ideology, also.  When I say the BEST of liberalism, I don't mean an 'ism', I mean the principle of individual liberty, principle that one may dare to try to change things for the sake of solving problems, to make an ethical improvement, to see what in reality may be improved, etc.


I do not trust either the public itself (it is often wrong, and democracy itself is a bad thing, as democracy really means the rule of the mob to persecute minorities, to ignore those with expertise, to ignore those who have rare insight, etc.), and I do not believe in the concept of 'equal time' because I do not believe that reality is best understood by splitting the difference between two parties, two ideological positions.  Republican and Democratic party lines have both become ideologies which I oppose vehemently.

Today's liberalism is about individual liberty, and you mischaracterize it and distort it due to your ideology.  Conservative ideology like liberal ideology is toxic.  I'm for the best of what conservatism has to offer, NOT for conservative ideology.  In certain cases liberalism is more about individual liberty than certain forms of conservatism (social conservatism often is against individual liberty but for government intrusion and dictation, for example, desiring the government forcing students to say a prayer or a pledge, desiring to force states to reject gay marriage, desiring to send tax money to churches through various means even when those churches discriminate in their hiring and/or even in their delivery of services and use tax money to proselytize)


The radical left are not liberals, just as the radical right are not conservatives.

This isn't a very definitive description of a liberal for the precise reason that it could be equally applied to a conservative.  What essentially separates the liberal from the conservative is their conception of government.  Conservatives have rightly understood the essential function of government as a protector from harm and fraud.  Liberals has wrongly added an additional attribute of "provider" to the function of government, which is not what our forefathers have envisioned, since they were classical liberals who believed in small, limited government that minimally interfered in the lives of the citizenry. 

Faithfulee wrote:

The question that I have regarding the problem people of a conservative persuasion have with liberals is how do you rationalize your position?

To say that this is a country of conservatives founded on conservative values fails to address the reality of its founding. The country was a colonial extension of England. For the founding fathers to see this as a problem would require a liberal perspective. The traditional conservative leanings of the colonial power was a problem for the individual. The right to self-determination in any regard was a belief that was held in the face of the conservative view of the subjugation to that rule of the lords and king.

The abolition of slavery was a liberal view, which incidentally was a REPUBLICAN move, right after the determination of a state's rights were viewed to be limited by the federal government, and its right for existence. The entire premise of the Civil war centered around a state's right to determine how it governs itself. The issue of slavery was merely the basket in which the issue was carried forward. The resultant end was a country that had a state petitioning for admission to the Union, but could not exercise the same right of petitioning for secession from the Union. This flies in the face of the conservative view that is claimed for individual liberty.

The establishment of women's suffrage and the right to vote is a liberal concept. Even before this ideal, the concept of a voice in politics was limited to a man's status as a property owner. Again, conservativism by its very nature states that a person needs to be male and to be a property owner to have a voice in any political process of government. But even that is limited to the authority that would be granted by the royalty who is ruling.

The concept of a New Deal, such as FDR instituted to get the country moving after the Great Depression is a liberal concept. The conservative ideal would be to let the economy sort itself out and people make for themselves their own way. If the New Deal would not have been created, the various electrical production capacity of the Tennessee valley would not have occurred, thereby limiting the financial capacity for many of the conservative business owners in the area, such as FedEx, Busch's Baked Beans, and the country music industry as a whole. The electricity produced as a result of FDR and his liberal New Deal allowed this country to arm and prepare for a world war. The very nuclear power that is essential to the conservative candidate John McCain would not be possible. If the Tennessee Valley Authority had not been created by FDR's New Deal, Oakwood, TN would never have been built, and the nuclear genie would still be in his/her bottle.

The liberal ideas of banking regulation would not have been established, and anyone today who is a customer of IndyMac Bank would be left without any of their money. I'm sure there are many conservatives who are thanking the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation today that they still have their money. Some, who I am sure, will make a campaign contribution to John McCain.

To add to the previous point, the reason we have banks failing today is simple, deregulation. The conservative ideals that a company or a person will do the right thing is really a dream. The very religious ideals that fuel much of today's conservative movement state that humanity is, by its very nature, sinful. The fact that greed is the cause of the failure is evident. 15 years ago, loans that were made today would not have been made. The people who are illequiped to make such a commitment are prevented from making a mistake that all of us have to pay for.

The energy that we are paying so much for today was cheaper 2 years ago. Why?

Simple, prior to the mid-90's, in order for a energy to be traded, the person selling it needed to be the producer of it, or the person who transports it. The person who bought it needed to be a transporter or an end user/producer. Today, anyone with money can buy into the market. The problem with this is the supply and demand balance that conservatives point to is placed into an imbalance. There are too many demands without the proper supply. But, this is not a real situation. The usage of fuel has remained in a consistent growth state in the US. The world supply has essentially kept up with the worldwide demand. The only thing that has changed is the way the US energy market operates. If historical reference is needed, one only needs to look back to 2002 with the collapse of Enron. They traded under this system to dumby companies that they already owned, to other dumby companies they owned. This caused a spike in the perceived demand that caused rolling black outs in the Southwest. The overall demand hand not outpaced the supply to the degree that a rolling black out would be necessary. It was simply a paper shift that caused the problem. Again, the REPUBLICAN reports that were done in the aftermath of Enron bore this information out.

Yep. The Liberals and socialists of the world really are the problem...We can't seem to let someone walk away with a clear conscience.

Ah, . .  all you're doing is capitalizing off the terms "conservative" and "liberal" with no actual insight about their history and development.  Conservatives don't always want to conserve.  They happen to be called conservatives because their philosophy was the same or similar to the philosophy of our founding fathers -- that's about it.  If the philosophy of our founding fathers just happened to be socialist or welfare liberal, then they wouldn't be called conservatives.




Wrong.  The conservative conception of government is obviously a democracy, since our principles of freedom require minimal government interference in our daily lives.



The liberal conception of government is also a democracy, they just has a slightly different expectation from the feds.




And?  If you read the rest of what I wrote, you would see that the liberal and the conservative share a common component, but the liberal adds an obligation to it.




Not so quick, Sqwirrly.  Those conservatives who promote faith-based initiatives aren't hard-core conservatives.  I'm sure you would agree there is a spectrum from liberal to conservative.  The hard-core conservatives don't want the government providing for us one bit.  Those conservatives who compromise on this issue belong either into the neo-conservative camp or the religious right.  So, my distinction is not false as you suppose.




You're missing the point.  It's not about glorifying anyone.  Your criticism is limited to hypocrisy. 


That has nothing to do with it.

Xian is more an Obamaman than a liberal

Obama changed his website to reflect the "change" he is now in favor of.

We should expect a new party line from Xian,  if he shows up again.