Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (582984)	6/14/2004 6:43:19 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

"I am saying that the idea that liberalism and conservatism can be philosophically split between economic and social spheres is false, that it just does not happen in our system." That's ridiculous! Of course it happens! (For example, in the '60s and '70s this used to describe the well-known split between the 'Rockefeller Republicans' and the 'Goldwater Republicans'... when Bush I and Reagan were competing in the primaries, it was argued that Bush was a member of the 'Rockefeller wing', ie, more social liberal but fiscal conservative... while Reagan was more the social conservative and fiscal liberal. No comparison is exact, of course, but these are very useful yardsticks to measure by. For example, someone who is a social reactionary --- wanting to go way back in social history --- but who is willing to deficit spend until the dollar turns into a 'Weimar Republic new Mark', is QUITE different from a fiscal conservative. You can close your eyes to the differences all you want to.... but that doesn't mean they aren't there! [And, for example, there are PLENTY of people who are 'moderate' on social issues, but 'conservative' of fiscal matters....] "These are highly imprecise designations." No kidding! But they are still an order of magnitude more descriptive then just 'Liberal / Conservative'.