Fiscally Conservative & Social Liberal?
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 07-26-2004 - 9:55pm |
Perhaps you could be
A. Conservative on Both
B. Moderate fiscally and moderate socially
C. Liberal on Both.
It just seem difficult if not impossible to be Fiscally conservative and socially liberal and here is why.
Most liberal programs increase gov't control over private institutions, increase spending on issues, or increase red tape, etc. This all adversly affects efficiency or causes increases in gov't spending. Both of which a fiscal conservative would be against. Yet I hear this uddered all the time. I wonder if it is a way of presenting yourself as not one of the extremes on either side. You certainly can get labeled when you say I'm a conservative or I'm a liberal. So you play both sides of the fence.
I'm not convinced it is not possible it just seems unlikely. It would seem in every case you would end up being a moderate or liberal if you support liberal social programs because of their restriction on the free market or their inherent cost from tax payer coffers.

Pages
''Probably,'' Story also wrote, ''at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.' The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment."
I am well aware of Mr. Story's Commentaries. However, Mr. Story writes, "that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state,". However, Mr. Story had heard the arguments in "Marbury v. Madison" and believed that state constitutions were still viable methods of protecting the rights of citizens.
I don't have time today to go into a long history, but to keep yourselves amused, answer these questions:
1. In a democracy, who is the sovereign?
2. In light of the answer in 1, where do all democratic governments derive their power?
3. Can a state constitution bestow more rights on its' citizens than the federal constitution?
4. Prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was more sovereign, the state constitution or the federal constitution?
5. Why did the Marshall court (of which Mr. Story was the reporter) begin to cite only "positive law", when courts before it had looked to "natural" law to resolve its' cases?
6. What happened in Alabama and Georgia in 1865 that bought about the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment?
7. Why does the Fourteenth Amendment change the very nature of the U.S. Constitution?
Enjoy.
LMAO....
But this begs the question, which religion has it's place in government? We then have to say many, since there are so many differing religions of the citizens of this nation, and we have a government that (should, at least) belong to everybody...even those who don't believe in a God, or those who believe in a God that is not Christian...
Personally, I have no problem with "In God we trust" on our money, or "One nation, under God" in the pledge of allegiance...and I'm not a Christian. But this is because in my mind, I understand the word God represents a great many thing for a great many people, often not being the same thing.
I do believe, however, that religious tolerance is important. People spend too much time trying to convince others that their form of worship and belief is wrong. Just let people believe as they believe and let it be.
I would be very upset if I was forced to participate in, say, a Christian prayer. But that doesn't and wouldn't happen to me in this country because I have the choice to: a) leave the situation if it makes me uncomfortable, b) stand out of the prayer all together or c) pray along in a way that suits my faith.
I do not think it's necessary to force everyone to stop praying, as long as everyone is tolerant of the possibility that some may not pray the same prayer. :)
Didn't Jesus make the distinction?
While most Americans can be considered to be both liberal and conservative a distinction can be made between people whose ideas tend more toward the conservative or more toward liberal. Even through most liberal ideas are now the status quo there are some that are not and therefore cannot be considered conservative, at least not yet. Further, some conservative ideas can be seen as not so liberal as they harken back to times that were not so liberal.
Using the dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative (see post 6936.8), as well as the ways that economic theories have been categorized during the 20th century, who could one say is more liberal (or conservative) the leadership of the Republican Party or the leadership of the Democratic Party?
President Bush and his supporters have used two different economic theories to justify the recent tax cuts as a means to stimulate the economy. One theory is that the tax cuts left people with more money to spend. The increased spending then quickens economic growth, increasing average incomes and reducing unemployment. This theory states that tax cuts are most useful during a recession or when the economy is weak as it has been during most of the past four years and that budget deficits are not only appropriate during such a period, but beneficial. But, this theory was proposed and developed by the very liberal economist, John Maynard Keynes, as a means for the government to push the economy out of the Great Depression of the 1930's. It proposes that government can rescue the private sector from bad times. It is now the theory of this liberal economist that the Bush administration is using as one of the justifications of its policy. Further, the democrats have taken up a position of the conservative economists by opposing budget deficits even in weak economy times.
What differs the current war in Iraq from much of the history of American foreign policy is the emphasis on democratic nation building. Except for the period just after the entry of the United States into World War II and the beginning of the Korean War one would be hard pressed to find a time when it could be *clearly* said that the *primary* foreign policy of the United States was to promote or extend democracy by military action or even by quasi-military action. But that is the current policy in Iraq. So, this Iraqi policy cannot be considered to be very conservative. An example of this is illustrated by comparing the present policy of democratic nation building in Iraq with the first President Bush’s Iraqi policy of simply returning to the status quo. That was a very conservative policy indeed. In addition the very idea of a revolutionary, radical change in Iraq, which is what George W. Bush is attempting through this democratic nation building, is inherently anti-conservative.
Moreover, in many ways the uniting concepts behind most all liberal ideas are democracy and tolerance. This extends from the 17th century philosopher John Lock’s idea of a social contract that the people have every right to change if they felt they weren’t served properly by the government, to modern liberal ideas that democratic rule can justify most anything and in some cases even a reduction in freedom. So, democratic nation building is profoundly liberal in nature and it could be said (at least in this one sense) that the current George W. Bush, by virtue of his policy of democratic nation building, is the most liberal president, in regard to foreign policy since, or before Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.
Also, in regard to matters such as trade policy, immigration policy, the total size of the Federal Government and even same sex marriage, there is little or no difference in the likely *practical* results of George W. Bush’s and John Kerry’s positions.
President Bush is not in every case more liberal than the democrats. The second economic theory used to justify the tax cuts is built on conservative economic ideas regarding the lowering of the marginal tax rates facing high income tax payers, but the recent tax cuts have been of both the “liberal” (Keynesian) and “conservative” types. Further, even though the democratic nation building can be thought of as liberal, the coexisting policy of picking some anti democratic governments to support (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) is constant with much of past U.S. foreign policy and therefore very conservative.
But, that’s the whole point, both the Republicans and Democratic support a mixture of liberal and conservative ideas and, in my opinion, that is a fairly even mixture.
Tom
Informative & interesting post.
Thank you.
ITA!!!!!
Bravo. Excellent post. God means something different altogether to each human being -- some see God as "the Father, Son & Holy Spirit," while others see God as nature, and still others see God as nothing. There should be tolerance of each person's view of God, and the opportunity fpr people to celebrate their spirituality freely in the way that they see fit, both within and without the government. For example, I believe schools that receive Federal funding should provide moments of silence throughout the day for students to exercise their religious freedom -- to stand around staring at the ceiling, or to pray. But there should not be any established "right" or "wrong" way to do these things.
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Hmm...evil hypocrites attempting word traps. Sounds familiar.
TOS permits 'attacking' a post but NOT the individual posting it.
Pages