Originally Posted By alexbook I've been hearing lately that Huckabee isn't a "true conservative." I've heard the same charge leveled at Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Ron Paul. So, the question for the conservatives out there, is who that leaves. Fred Thompson? Duncan Hunter? Drafting Newt Gingrich?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The thing is, none of these guys passes every single litmus test these far-right people have. Boo hoo.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Politics is a spectrum that ranges from socialism (on the left) to fascism (on the right). Conservatism is the right-hand side of the spectrum while liberalism is the left. Those that tend to be "true" conservatives tend to be extreme conservatives (i.e. fascists) while those that claim to be true liberals tend to be socialists. Thank goodness, we do not have any true conservatives or liberals in the presidential race.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Politics is a spectrum that ranges from socialism (on the left) to fascism (on the right).<< You're not keeping up with the National Review. According to Jonah Goldberg's new book "Liberal Fascism", Fascism and Nazism are extreme left-wing philosophies.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Jon Stewart pretty much demolished that the other night, if you saw him with Goldberg as his guest.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "Fascism and Nazism are extreme left-wing philosophies" Actually that sounds like an absurd statement but I have not read the book. So if fascism and nazism are on the extreme left, along with communism and socialism, what pray tell is on the extreme right?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I haven't read (or even heard of until just now) the book, but I've thought for a long time that if you take either one to the exteme, the both sort of meet up again. There is the happy middle ground that we tend to have now, and there is another middle ground similar to what most people would call communism. Is it conservative or liberal? I say it's both, since it holds up the extremist view points from both sides in a way. It may sound a little strange, but after a certain point, you just go all the way around the spectrum and meet up on the other side.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So if fascism and nazism are on the extreme left, along with communism and socialism, what pray tell is on the extreme right?<< Puppies. Motherhood. God. (Not necessarily in that order).
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Well, I always thought that the far left focused on the individual (do everything to make sure every individual is taken care of -- even at the expense of the nation) while the far right focused on the nation (the greater good for the nation is more important than the individual's rights). This would put fascism on the far right, which is where it belongs I think. I think conservativism is much closer to fascism than to socialism. And nazism is just a brand of fascism - just like communism is a brand of socialism.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Well, I always thought that the far left focused on the individual (do everything to make sure every individual is taken care of -- even at the expense of the nation) while the far right focused on the nation (the greater good for the nation is more important than the individual's rights).>> I'd rather see the individual take care of the individual.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "I'd rather see the individual take care of the individual." That makes you a conservative. If individuals can't take care of themselves, then what do you do? The left would have a social safety net for these things - the further to the left you go, the bigger the net. Our country is pretty much in the middle, which I think is pretty good for everyone. While we may thing there are big philosophical difference between democrats and republicans, there really aren't. They are really the center-left and center-right parties respectively.
Originally Posted By DAR <<That makes you a conservative. If individuals can't take care of themselves, then what do you do?>> Taking personal responsiblity is never a bad thing.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I never said that it was. But you aren't advocating the removal of the social safety net are you? Our current system balances personal responsibility with a safety net pretty well. Extreme positions (left or right) would put a much greater emphasis on either side of that equation, which could be problematic.
Originally Posted By ElKay Good point EighthDwarf, which GOP elected offical would tomorrow advocate mailing back the accrued monies that workers have in their Social Security accounts? None, the Feds use the monies to make the budget deficite less out of wack. What about the Securities and Exchange Commission. Wall St. would be toxic mess if institutional investors lost confidence. What about the oil depletion deduction or farm subsidies? What'll happen to Haliburton????? Folks spouting letting the individual take care of the individual is no less bunk than lefties saying the State should determing the sex of a couple's children. On the otherhand, all of the major industrial countries have government funded health care, except for the US where we rank pretty far down the list on so many health indexes, hovering around the developing nation levels. Isn't it fact that so many of our major manufacturing industries are hobbled because of their private health care expenses, while their overseas competitors take advantage of the gov't. sponsored health benefits? Think about it.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Folks spouting letting the individual take care of the individual is no less bunk>> I think the best judge of what's best for myself is me. And if I not in the capacity to make that decision than a family member would be.
Originally Posted By ElKay "And if I not in the capacity to make that decision than a family member would be." And if not then what? Would they let your family starve and go homeless? A lot of good conservatives who rail about the so-called American nanny state will happily take their share from the public trough when it suits them. I know this guy who has a comfortable life retired in Palm Springs, CA who enjoys slamming welfare cheats in the news. A couple of years ago, his doofus son an MD in Florida ships his Romainian adoptive son with bad emotional problems on his dad and what does this arch-conservative do, put his adoptive grandson on MediCal, instead of personaly funding the treatment on his own. Needless to say he gets caught and bitches about having to payback the public funds slated for the poorest of the poor here in California. Don't kid yourself, conservatives, even some libertarians will turn a blind eye to partaking of the public trough if the opportunity. They just hold their noses and blame liberals for it all.
Originally Posted By DAR Let me explain again. I am the best judge of what's best for myself, not the government.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Yes you are. But wouldn't you agree that some individuals (mentally retarded, infants, disabled, etc.) are not capable of supporting themselves? What if you had no family to take care of you and you were not able to take care of yourself? Would you want society to abandon you? I think we have come so far as a species because of our instinct to take care of our own. There is a "neutral zone" between where society provides enough support and where it becomes intrusive; the left and right are constantly fighting to move the battle lines closer to their own side. As long as the battle stays within the neutral zone, we will continue to function well as a society. If the battle moves beyond it, all bets are off.
