Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

[ebola?]

They take money from the government and contribute nothing to society in return.

That's the thing: our irrational preoccupation with free-riders of social services makes those in the US far less efficient than those provided in Canada and Western Europe. The US's massive bureaucratic institutions designed to assess worthiness of those petitioning for welfare cost a great deal more than people 'scamming' welfare in the absence of such bureaucratic oversight would.

The crux is that the vast majority of people do not find living on the dole rather than working, by choice, particularly 'rad', bureaucratic oversight or not.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

This has resulted in class warfare

Lol, I wish. America needs class-warfare NOW.

ebola

 

[qwe]

I would argue that not reforming what the progressives began is also a form of status quo, no?

i agree, and i think this demonstrates history's progression

What FDR established (i.e. social security, SEC, FDIC, FHA) and others created later on were good but some of those programs are in need of reform because they have been let run rampant and without oversight for far too long. This has resulted in class warfare and more poverty that it was intended to improve. Socio-economic factors notwithstanding, how can someone with a progressive mindset not consider programs that are over half a century old not be a part of the status-quo?

iirc, the recent voting record of republicans is...

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, maybe if you do this.. .. actually no, no

which is the republican party doing what you say is an issue with the democrats, but to an even more childish extreme. they both play politics. but overall, one side is on the side of change in a progressive direction (not that there is one particular direction/path, but that we can expand outward our awareness; that "outward direction" is progression)

also, i'm talking of progressivism in particular, which the democrats are not always "up to date with", of course. (they're just more up to date than the main opposition)

 

[Jimi Thing]

That's the thing: our irrational preoccupation with free-riders of social services makes those in the US far less efficient than those provided in Canada and Western Europe. The US's massive bureaucratic institutions designed to assess worthiness of those petitioning for welfare cost a great deal more than people 'scamming' welfare in the absence of such bureaucratic oversight would.

You make a good point. I guess my main issue I just don't agree with the ideology behind the welfare system. However, it is clearly not going away any time soon, and I fully support the most cost effective way of doing it.

QWE-
Your holier than thou attitude that every far "extreme" liberal AND conservative seems to possess is preventing our system government from progressing in a positive way. Did you really just use the abolishment of slavery and women's suffrage to validate your ideals? 8( You do realize that the Republican party was founded by Anti-Slavery activists right? You can't actually believe that conservatives are anti civil rights...I guess you also think that Bush is a terrorist and 9/11 was an inside job, right? Uneducated and irrational one-sided accusations like this tear the country apart.


Both conservatives and liberals have their good points and bad points. Why do people find it necessary to choose one side or the other and relentlessy defend everything it stands for? Neither side has all the answers, and their clearly needs to be a medium. If people don't start thinking more moderately, we'll never get anywhere. One sided bickering and propaganda are cancerous to society.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

The crux is that the vast majority of people do not find living on the dole rather than working, by choice, particularly 'rad', bureaucratic oversight or not.

That's because living on the dole makes McD's look like high-pay work.

 

[qwe]

Your holier than thou attitude that every far "extreme" liberal AND conservative seems to possess is preventing our system government from progressing in a positive way

her question mentioned specific things about the republican party. in the context of the party system, it's true that one is more progressive on average. i didn't mean to say one is unflawed; in fact, i hate that the democratic party is the most progressive "viable-feeling" option

Did you really just use the abolishment of slavery and women's suffrage to validate your ideals?

in a sense; abolishment of slavery and womens' suffrage actually are ideals of mine, and they stem from my ideal of progressivism, so it's sort of the other way around. womens' suffrage etc are validated by progressive thinking, and progressive thinking defended them when they were new ideas

You do realize that the Republican party was founded by Anti-Slavery activists right?

i understand the parties change and mix and match all the time:

ending slavery, which was the republican party, but at that historical period the republican party's politics more closely correlated with "progressive" politics,

You can't actually believe that conservatives are anti civil rights...

you're saying that there has not been a correlation between conservatives and racist policies? remember, this discussion is pretty abstract. we are dealing with averages and tendencies...

I guess you also think that Bush is a terrorist

we call them war criminals when they're on our side. bush's official reasons don't make sense to me, powell lied, etc. that was criminal, and a war came of it. so i'll call him a war criminal

9/11 was an inside job, right

nope?

Uneducated and irrational one-sided accusations like this tear the country apart.

like "you believe 9/11 was an inside job, right?"

Both conservatives and liberals have their good points and bad points

of course. i know things are mixed and matched throughout different belief systems, i try to take the best from each

Why do people find it necessary to choose one side or the other and relentlessy defend everything it stands for?

don't think i'm a "prototypical leftist" or something. i don't relentlessly defend everything progressives stand for. views among progressives vary quite a bit...

progressive ideas make sense to me generally, sure. there is a large number of people to whom progressive ideas generally make sense, and there is a large number of people with quite mutually exclusive perspectives. that puts me, generally, on one particular "side". does that mean i'm wrong? and it is not so clear cut... it's not like i'm always on the "liberal" or "democrat" or "futurist" or "w/e" side... all these are conceptual tools that are great to use, but like you implied, can be over-used. and i never meant to imply that conservative thinking, or, conservative ideologies, never yield anything useful

progressive ideas have motivated both the republicans and the democrats, historically and at present. like i said, mixed/matched. but let's be honest... one party has more of these progressive ideas than the other at the present moment. politically, that's what i was trying to say

One sided bickering and propaganda are cancerous to society.

if you want a citation for something that i said that i implied was scientific but may not have been, shoot and i'll respond. i don't do propaganda. also, i believe i explained how i'm not as one sided as you seem to be implying

final note: let's stop interchangeably using liberal/democrat and conservative/republican

Sure, now pass the bong dude.

how'd you know i was stoned

 

[Cyc]

When the Republicans bring up any discussion about reforming social security or medicare spending, etc. it is defended like some sacred cow. I'm not saying the Republicans have great ideas on how to make these programs better but at least they want to open the matter to discussion. In my mind, that shows some open-mindedness on a topic that progressives refuse to broach. And I wonder why that is if these programs are so wonderful and have helped so many for so long now......

Maybe if they had an idea other than freeze, cut, or eliminate, people would listen.

 

[Wyld 4 X]

Lol, I wish. America needs class-warfare NOW.

ebola

But isnt that one of the arguments against a capitalist economy, that it creates class warfare? If it hasnt yet, then when will it, if ever. I guess it depends on if you believe Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow.

 

[Wyld 4 X]

Maybe if they had an idea other than freeze, cut, or eliminate, people would listen.

lol, that's reform! What else is there when you are trying to make changes? Spend more? No, hell no.

 

[Cyc]

lol, that's reform! What else is there when you are trying to make changes? Spend more? No, hell no.

You can rework a system within the same budget (adjusting for inflation of course)..

You know, the type of reform that doesn't include throwing money at something. It's called regulation. Proposing budget cuts isn't working with it. It's working to get rid of it. I don't know about you, but I look for innovation and vision in my elected leaders.

 

[Cyc]

But isnt that one of the arguments against a capitalist economy, that it creates class warfare? If it hasnt yet, then when will it, if ever. I guess it depends on if you believe Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow.

We need class warfare to bring massive public and media attention to class inequities.

 

[EA-1475]

women voting, *

black people voting, *

ending slavery, which was the republican party, but at that historical period the republican party's politics more closely correlated with "progressive" politics,

nowadays most social programs for the poor are a more progressive thing,

Modern day conservatism is classical liberalism (liberalism in the French Revolutionary sense).

What we call the progressive movement really got going with Marx. The progressives hijacked the term "liberal" believing that socialism was the logical next step forward from clasical liberalism. This is highly debatable. Conservatives will argue that marxism/socialism/progressivism/whatver was not a continuation of the French Revolution but in fact something completely new and different.

My point is that it is a bit of a stretch for modern liberals for claim any victory for anything that happened prior to 1870 simply because IMO, their movement did not exist back then. Other than a love of handsome men, I doubt that Abraham Lincoln and Barney Frank would have much points of agreement.

I'll grant you women's suffrage though. Although I don't see how it has been particularly helpful. Just being honest here...

pacifism seems to be a more radical or "liberal" idea (never conservative),

opposition to wars,

That's just poor knowledge of history.

Woodrow Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII), Truman (Korea), and LBJ (Vietnam) were all progressives. And all enthusiastically supported war for the reasons of "keeping the world safe for democracy" and whatnot. Which is really an idealistic touchy-feely progressive thing to say.

Until the late 60's, conservatives were consistently anti-war. More for pragmatic reasons than the humanitarian ones today.

 

[Pander Bear]

Modern day conservatism is classical liberalism (liberalism in the French Revolutionary sense).

Disagree, considering modern-day conservatism's deep connections to Burkian disgust (and rightly so) with the excesses of the french revolution. Americans speaking about political beliefs should just up their game and speak about liberalism as a belief that can be present in anybody's politics (a libertarian streak in either a left or right-leaning person), just as we can (or... almost all of us) agree that there are certain maters in which a climate of interventionism, regulation, and centralization is best (coining money, national defense).

What we call the progressive movement really got going with Marx.

Hardly: Is Teddy Roosevelt a marxist? Louis Brandeis? Where exactly does Marx call for incrementally raising working standards and decreasing the power of trusts to preserve the regime of liberal democracies and corporations?

Woodrow Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII), Truman (Korea), and LBJ (Vietnam) were all progressives. And all enthusiastically supported war for the reasons of "keeping the world safe for democracy" and whatnot. Which is really an idealistic touchy-feely progressive thing to say.

Until the late 60's, conservatives were consistently anti-war. More for pragmatic reasons than the humanitarian ones today.

Wilson was hardly a warmonger, and the "until the late 60's..." caveat is a pretty glaring one... Suffice to say, any political ideology that can gain traction in America is compatible with war. Nobody has a monopoly on wanting to either remark the world in our image, or being an isolationist.

 

[Pander Bear]

Modern day conservatism is classical liberalism (liberalism in the French Revolutionary sense).

Disagree, considering modern-day conservatism's deep connections to Burkian disgust (and rightly so) with the excesses of the french revolution. Americans speaking about political beliefs should just up their game and speak about liberalism as a belief that can be present in anybody's politics (a libertarian streak in either a left or right-leaning person), just as we can (or... almost all of us) agree that there are certain maters in which a climate of interventionism, regulation, and centralization is best (coining money, national defense).

What we call the progressive movement really got going with Marx.

Hardly: Is Teddy Roosevelt a marxist? Louis Brandeis? Where exactly does Marx call for incrementally raising working standards and decreasing the power of trusts to preserve the regime of liberal democracies and corporations?

Woodrow Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII), Truman (Korea), and LBJ (Vietnam) were all progressives. And all enthusiastically supported war for the reasons of "keeping the world safe for democracy" and whatnot. Which is really an idealistic touchy-feely progressive thing to say.

Until the late 60's, conservatives were consistently anti-war. More for pragmatic reasons than the humanitarian ones today.

Wilson was hardly a warmonger, and the "until the late 60's..." caveat is a pretty glaring one... Suffice to say, any political ideology that can gain traction in America is compatible with war. Nobody has a monopoly on wanting to either remark the world in our image, or being an isolationist.

 

[qwe]

Modern day conservatism is classical liberalism (liberalism in the French Revolutionary sense).

another example of the progressive nature of history. classical liberalism is tough to attack nowadays, and is an integral component of most peoples' philosophies, conservatives and progressives

the less progressive side, by definition, "lags" behind the more progressive side as far as progress goes

I'll grant you women's suffrage though. Although I don't see how it has been particularly helpful. Just being honest here...

it doesn't matter to you whether women can vote?

 

[ebola?]

But isnt that one of the arguments against a capitalist economy, that it creates class warfare?

My contention with capitalism is that it produces socio-economic classes. The only possible route out, if there are any, is class-warfare.

If it hasnt yet, then when will it, if ever. I guess it depends on if you believe Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow.

I am far to the left of both of these figures. Glenn Beck's occasionally boisterously delusional to the point of humor, and Maddow's occasionally witty, so it's a wash.

Modern day conservatism is classical liberalism (liberalism in the French Revolutionary sense).

not when coupled with Evangelically mobilized and ideologically based social conservatism.

What we call the progressive movement really got going with Marx. The progressives hijacked the term "liberal" believing that socialism was the logical next step forward from clasical liberalism.

This may be true when we look at Eurocentric socialism as it developed in the late-nineteenth and very early twentieth centuries, but certainly not when examining the genealogy of political ideology in the US. Clearly, with both the Wilsonian and FDR periods of progressivism, policies directed to temper capitalism were mobilized specifically to stave Marxist revolution, this progressivism provoked by active class-mobilization of the period. These sets of policies may be easily situated within a wider liberalist theory of politics.

ebola

 

[Arnold]

Note the size of the brain in the 'I'm smarter then you' part/tumor says it all innit.

 

[ebola?]

If that says it all, then you apparently don't have much to say.

 

[Apostacious]

^^ Whenever a contemporary republican claims that their ideology most strictly adheres to "common sense," they should really use the term "my own personal sense" in order to be correct. The common man certainly does not benefit most from conservative policy decisions, unless that man is white, of course.

 

[marsmellow]

Uh, most white people don't benefit from them either. I'm a white male and they've done pretty much nothing to help me.

They fight for the interests of big business. That is the only group of people the republicans stand up for.