Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Conservative or liberal
Is the bank bailout conservative or liberal? Are warrantless wiretaps conservative or liberal? Is the unitary executive conservative or liberal? Is the use of waterboarding conservative or liberal? Is pre-emptive war in Iraq conservative or liberal? (William F. Buckley opposed it). Is pro-life conservative or liberal? (Goldwater was staunchly pro-choice). Is gay marriage conservative or liberal? Is theism conservative or liberal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Both and, lol =)
Happy Birthday, Victor!!!
They are all statist machinations. Christians ought not to be involved in any of it if they can help it.
If somebody insists on maintaining "liberalism", whatever that might mean, then that person is actually a "conservative".
The truth of the matter is that everyone is "conservative", since we are all trying to conserve certain beliefs and ideals.
The real question is: What beliefs and ideals are worthy of conserving?
That's why I don't find these labels, philosophically speaking, of much use.
Here is a good summation of the "conservative" and the "liberal" approaches to economics: Make-Work
I've dealt with most of the questions VR poses here (with a further comment here and here).
Well *sigh*
(crestfallen state of mind)
Glittering generalities, as the salesmen use....
CULTURALLY, conservatism is more sympathetic to religious belief.
But conservatism as an ideology is just as prone to disreputable behavior in some areas as they slam the slatternly liberals for in others.
Among liberals with all that title entails, there is more openess (so they claim) to non-traditional viewpoints about faith to suit whatever modish fancy, or to simply disavow any notion of God at all. Steve Kangas' famous ultra Left website is still around and although he's deceased, you can see his Secularist/radicalist approach to politics and how, for some reason, it gets around to the notion that Mankind is basically on his own, Society is a god, and conservatives have paeans to the distand past. Which of course he spares not time in pointing to as evil incarnate: for workers, for homosexual rights, for females, for tradition not being a scientific guide for the modern world, for once thinking the world flat as a fritter, etc. And of course you'll see that while Stalin and Mao were just cults of personality in their flavors of atheist ideology, the Church by contrast, he nails as chemically evil, almost, in oppression.
And of course he's got the litany of tears about the "war between science and faith" with input from Carrier and Andrew Dickson White.
No doubt some of this is true so far as that goes, with little explanitory context or filter (politics complicates claims about faith in the past in relation to government created torment)
I think that although Kangas is easily identified as radical, this general "bleedover" about where the lines are drawn is still around today.
But it is not that clear. Some Christians who might be traditional on some moral and social issues turn out to be almost pacificists (and yes, I used the CORRECT spelling that time), whereas many "traditional" liberals, like the agnostic William Henry III, do a fairly good stand in for a defense of capitalism and even powerful elitism as the better way to help society more than government power or prowess.
Ilion.
Well slap me thrice and hand me to me momma!
Good to see you!
I think the Beast man over in the UK must be on vacation.
But...redplanet cartoons!
(LOL) (?!)
Hey, there yourself! And so I've noticed about BR.
Post a Comment