Liberalism

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which ones? The attack on Afghanistan or Iraq?

I've only heard two things specifically where "the families" have come together to say anything: first is Bush's blocking of, and then censornig of, Congressional and independent inqiries into 9/11. The second was that many families were deeply upset with the Rush to war against Iraq, as they felt it distracted from the War on Terror, at the very least (some were also opposed on moral grounds).

[Whaleboy]

GePap:

I suppose each of these concepts, liberalism and conservatism are like spheres that are different depending on your angle of view, but fundamentally, they are all the same concept, or, as I said earlier, a load of interrelated concept to form something like liberalism or conservatism.

[Whaleboy]

Bush's blocking of, and then censornig of, Congressional and independent inqiries into 9/11

Why did he do that? Surely that is the logical course of action?

[Odin]

All Libertarians need to go to a mental hospital.

The 9/11 families are against Bush because of him protecting the Saudis.

[Whaleboy]

All Libertarians need to go to a mental hospital

Yeh, most genius's have had clinical depression at some point. Or is that just me....

The 9/11 families are against Bush because of him protecting the Saudis

The two of them we have heard from. And why would their views in that respect differ from other Americans? To be brutally blunt, its not like their views matter, or should matter, in determining foreign or domestic policy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NeoCons are not the same as Rush limbaugh, and they certainly are not in the same class as the diplomat. They used 9/11 as an excuse, but I doubt they have the same ideas as dip. on the matter. In essence, they are trying to set about new ocnditions by which they can pre-empt the growth of new terror: that is the point of trying to install a pro-US system in Iraq which they think will lead to reform in the whole area. Where neo-cons (most of which grew up as liberals) and liberals is their view on what is the best method to get to reform, with neo-cons thinking force is a viable and mighty effective option.

Very nice, GePap

I hate when people mislabel me (and yes, I am considering myself more and more a NeoConservative these days).

[Odin]

I hate when people mislabel me (and yes, I am considering myself more and more a NeoConservative these days).

BURN HIM!!!

[GePap]

While I disagree with many of the underlying theorties that back neo-conservatism, to label them along with the real ...well, with less enlightened folks on the right is terribly incorrect, Anyone who tries to hande a Wolfie. like they do a Rush will fail, cause they do not know their enemy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
(and yes, I am considering myself more and more a NeoConservative these days).

That's not too suprising.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BURN HIM!!!

Why, would you rather I be a paleo-conservative (not a job, btw, some do call themselves that) who simply advocates US interests and does not care about spreading democracy?

[DinoDoc]

I don't think that they are called paleo-conservatives Imran.

[Odin]

Neo-cons are evil, self-serving, intelectual ideologes.

Irman, Neos don't give a sh!t about democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's what plenty of them refer to themselves, even a Northwestern Law Professor speaker that the Federalist Society had, perfered the term paleo-conservative.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Perhaps Odin keeps saying it to try to prove to himself that it is true .

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Perhaps Odin keeps saying it to try to prove to himself that it is true .

Pehaps it is true

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's what plenty of them refer to themselves, even a Northwestern Law Professor speaker that the Federalist Society had, perfered the term paleo-conservative.

Eh. I'd prefer the term Realist myself but I won't get hung up on semantics.

Anyway, I'm somewhat suprised that the name Neo-consevative stuck anyway considering the fact what it described reads like a more forceful version of Liberal IR theory.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Perhaps Odin keeps saying it to try to prove to himself that it is true .

Then why does Shrub only "liberate" countries that give us a return on investment (OIL! ). You guys better do what you preach and beat the crap out of thugs like Mugabe, oh thats right, they have no oil. Liberia doesn't count.; the small number of people we are sending won't stand a chance if the rebels are hell bent, which I think they are, on installing one of themselves as dictator.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm somewhat suprised that the name Neo-consevative stuck anyway considering the fact what it described reads like a more forceful version of Liberal IR theory.

Well that is what it is, but people like Kristol described themselves as NeoConservatives and that stuck. Basically, liberals don't like force so much, so they described themselves as a new kind of conservative. Non-realist in outlook.

Then why does Shrub only "liberate" countries that give us a return on investment

Perhaps because he isn't a TRUE neoconservative .

Btw, I haven't really seen any 'return on the investment' due to oil yet, have you? The left just loves to keep parroting the same lines over and over hoping to God that people won't realize how full of **** they are .

You may wish to read the thread I posted a few days ago about Bush's "Americanized" Foreign Policy where it states that Neocons don't like what Bush is doing in foreign policy so much, because it seems more for domestic interests than the neoconservative creed of forceful liberalism.

[Whaleboy]

and does not care about spreading democracy?

There is nothing holy and ultimately good about that, certainly nothing that would warrant forcing it on equally valid points of view. I know we think theyre not equally valid, but objectively, and by definition, they are.

I'd prefer the term Realist myself

Some say that liberalism is inherently more idealistic than conservatism, which is more realistic. I don't entirely agree, its more complex, but I see how they can say that... after all, the conservatives would have been opposed to the death of feudalism etc. Its something that i constantly trying to find a new high watermark, and is inconsistent thus.

Shrub

[Whaleboy]

I haven't really seen any 'return on the investment' due to oil yet, have you?

Have you seen the fall on the global oil market? . Say no more , but the situation will become even clearer as Iraq becomes more stable... which looks like it'll take a while . Told you so

[Imran Siddiqui]

the conservatives would have been opposed to the death of feudalism etc.

It depends. Edmund Burke, the founder of modern conservatism, probably would not have been opposed to the death of feudalism, as long as it was gradual change.

[Whaleboy]

A slow enough change for him to get his very small "span of sympathy" around?

Back in "the day", most conservatives opposed it - as we are becoming more libertarian, generally the conservatives (in the loose definition), are pro-status quo, and often consist of the rulers by whatever definition. It is interesting to consider that as we become more libertarian, reformists have often become synonymous with liberalism and libertarianism. That is not necessarily the case!

[Imran Siddiqui]

A slow enough change for him to get his very small "span of sympathy" around?

Huh?

Burke wasn't opposed to change, he just thought it shouldn't be radical, because we might be getting rid of things that were good and were worthy of being kept. That's the one error that most liberals make, assuming that all conservatism is keeping things EXACTLY the same. No, it is for gradual change, so that things that 'work' can be conserved. Burke's main point was that society today is based on the combined wisdom of the past and things were replaced which did not work, but those things still around do work in some respect.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Burke wasn't opposed to change, he just thought it shouldn't be radical, because we might be getting rid of things that were good and were worthy of being kept. That's the one error that most liberals make, assuming that all conservatism is keeping things EXACTLY the same. No, it is for gradual change, so that things that 'work' can be conserved. Burke's main point was that society today is based on the combined wisdom of the past and things were replaced which did not work, but those things still around do work in some respect.

By definition conservatism is against any change, they like the status quo. If you are open to very small changes you are a moderate.

[Whaleboy]

Huh?

I was b!tching, but if you want an explanation, span of sympathy is an idea by Stanley Milgram, that people close off their minds to "outsiders", "aliens", and prefer to form groups, ethnicities, nations etc, in which to limit ones span of sympathy, because it is too cognetively demanding for most people to break down those barriers, and consider, understand and sympathise with people with whom one disagrees. Its so much easier to fall into your nations camp, instead of building your own.

Liberalism does not mean a preference for revolution over slow, gradual change, indeed, I prefer a steady change, because revolutions lead to instability and bloodshed. However, if there are elements of something that one wants to change, its harmful and idiotic to maintain it for the sake of it, like hunting or slavery for example.

[Whaleboy]

By the way, what you think of my site?

[Imran Siddiqui]

By definition conservatism is against any change, they like the status quo. If you are open to very small changes you are a moderate.

That's why I said 'modern' conservatism. Stop looking that world in black and white, Odin, and open your eyes to the complexity of it!

Liberalism does not mean a preference for revolution over slow, gradual change, indeed, I prefer a steady change, because revolutions lead to instability and bloodshed. However, if there are elements of something that one wants to change, its harmful and idiotic to maintain it for the sake of it, like hunting or slavery for example.

Well Burke's main political theories come from his great "Reflections on the Revolution in France", which are actually a set of letters sent by him to Voltaire in a debate over the revolution and its merits. A bit dry, but a nice read.

If you recall, Liberalism back then was for more revolutionary change... or at least quicker change. And sometimes things should be examined to see if they are worth it, but people should not throw away things simply because they are 'old' (like some people say about the US Constitution).

And what is wrong with hunting anyway?

[Odin]

Radical- want of extreme change(socialists, libertarians, greens)

Liberal- want some change (far-left democrats)

Moderate- open to minor changes (mainstream democrats)

Conservative- want the status quo (mainstream republicans)

Reactionary- want to return to past policies (far-right republicans)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like I said, Odin... black and white is out, complex shades of grey are in .

Telling that you say Democrats are Moderates and Republicans are Conservative. Because, of course, you believe no Republican can be a moderate .

[Whaleboy]

Liberalism back then was for more revolutionary change

Liberalism since then has learned from the c0ck up that lead to.

And what is wrong with hunting anyway?

Its cruel, needless, pointless, idiotic and completely unjustified. A bit like Gulf War II... I can see why you like it!