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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (115655)	5/23/2005 1:17:17 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793817

Today's liberalism is a failed ideology from the 60s. It is largely reactionary. The conservatives grabbed the growth model from the liberals and brought us JFK low taxes and supply side economics. Liberals became reactionary. Now conservatives are shrinking their tent to allow in only true believers. Supply side has morphed into somthing these folks dont want to talk about because of twin deficits. Now supply side alone becomes dangerous just like demand side blew up on the democrats. Whats at fault is an inability to stop spending which in effect buys votes. So are the cons becoming reactionary as they were in the 50s when they were defenders of pre-FDR failures? Methinks so. The center is there for someone to seize and the moderates now become the progressives. I hope i didnt mess up the literary argument you and CB were having. Mine is not the holy grail just one persons take on politics since WW2. Mike

To: Lane3 who wrote (115655)	5/23/2005 1:26:12 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793817

I agree with substituting "left" for "liberal," but would go further and say "socialist." Or, "statist." If your argument is that many Republicans and others who claim to be conservatives are also "statists," I won't disagree. The problem then becomes, what is the proper word for the antithesis of statism? "Liberalism" is the one that comes to mind. This is, by the way, the natural dichotomy, between those who believe in personal and economic freedom, and those who believe in strong central governments, especially governments with central planning of the domestic economy.

To: Lane3 who wrote (115655)	5/23/2005 4:03:16 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	Respond to of 793817

Probably familiar to most here, but Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative" is worth an occasional read. fahayek.org

To: Lane3 who wrote (115655)	5/23/2005 7:10:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793817

The big issues that the liberals had over the second half of the last century lent themselves to using the courts. They were issues where state laws were perceived to be in conflict with civil rights as guaranteed by the constitution. If that's your issue, what better route is there? Amend the constitution? Redundant. Pass a federal law? Also redundant. Change all the state laws? Not very efficient. It may be unfortunate that it played out that way, but I don't see how you can characterize liberals by the tool that happened to be the best one for the job. Best in terms of most effective in the short run and in some cases in the medium run, but often not best in terms of appropriateness, or in terms of positive long term consequences. To say that state laws where in conflict with civil rights guaranteed by the constitution begs the question. If the constitution really did guarantee them than it wouldn't be judicial activism. I know you used the term perceived but then you go on to say that the tool was the best on for the job. The conservative reaction is that the tool used was anything but the best for the job, both from a legal and constitutional standpoint, and from the idea that major changes in a democracy should have a degree of democratic legitimacy, and in the practical sense that the courts are a poor tool to work out some compromise where at least a big chunk on both sides can work out something they can live with, and thus you have continuing controversy. This wasn't so bad in terms of the civil rights decisions. They are less constitutionally questionable (and thus not as activist of decision) as say Roe vs. Wade. And while they may have preceded democratic consensus they didn't stop it from being achieved. And yes there are social conservatives who would be just as activist, but there is a difference between finding that some members of a part of a larger group (some social conservatives, and social conservatives are only a part of the larger group that would be called conservative) would us a particular "tool" inappropriately and finding that the majority of the opposing group (most liberals) supported and caused actual inappropriate use, and that the vast majority of the same group now vigorously defends this use, while at least a simple majority would push its use in to still new areas. Tim