conservative - liberal -silly

I find these terms ridiculous....I consider myself American....I am for common sense, against crime and criminals, what's good the the US, etc.....what do you think?

 

They do tend to promote one dimensional thinking about multidimensional problems. What's good for the US can be a matter of some debate though and at times the foundation is deep philosophical disagreements. On the other hand I've seen the extremes promote the same policies (all be it for different reasons) which are at odds from what the mainstream supports.

 

The link below is an interesting test (the "World's Smallest Political Quiz") to see where you stand on the political spectrum. Most people think of the political spectrum as a linear line from left to right, but it's not at all. There's a vertical line transecting that, which describes how authoritarian you would be to enforce your views. It's easier to just take the very short test than to describe it. After you fill in the dozen or so choices, you get the results and you may look at politics differently than you did before.

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php#

 

I got Libertarian which is how I see myself because I am a Constitutionalist. No surprises.

 

According to that, I'm a statist

 

And I would be a centrist in the USA, bordering statist, a notch towards liberals. No surprise there.

Of course in Finland the result would be slightly different.

 

That's how I score as well. I'm fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I don't care what other people do unless it affects me negatively. If somebody wants to take heroin it's fine by me. Just don't expect me to voluntarily pay a tax for your rehab. And don't expect me not to shoot you in the head if I catch you stealing my TV in the middle of the night.

 

You normally can't translate those political compass things from US politics to the rest of the world, terminology being so different, but that one's quite good due to it's sheer simplicity. One of the more logical I've seen of that kind of thing.

'Liberal' is the big international translation issue.
It means something rather different in the US to classical liberalism in most of the rest of the world. I sometimes wonder if that's down to 'Democrat' being so completely owned as a term by a specific party, so other definitions had to move.

 

You're right of course. Liberal once meant something like what we in the US now call libertarian. What we would call a liberal, you would call a socialist since they tend toward government imposition of their views. As for conservatives, they're all over the map. You have an evangelical wing, and others (like myself perhaps) who are only conservative when it comes to big government vs small government and don't give a rats ass about other people's lifestyle choices, as long as we don't have to pay for it.

That's why I like that quiz. That statist line transecting the social and economic lines adds a new dimension to how we think of political viewpoints.

 

can't open the link Kodiak.....I'm American, ...justice, what is right, ''pro anti-lawless'' behavior, etc.....what do you mean by 'socially liberal'??

 

All these labels and short quiz/surveys are in reality a bit meaningless. One of the problems now is that one can be both liberal and conservative on different issues and that doesn't make one a centrist. If one says they are a true Constitutionalist, then that is problematic as the original constitution grants very few powers. I personally and if one thinks about it wouldn't want to live in a world that hadn't changed over time.

Technically, since it's not in the original, we could still have slavery if one is a true Constitutionalist.

One thing the founding fathers did seem to get right is the 3 branches of Govt as checks and balances.

The Constitution was meant to be a living document.


11 of the 59 constitution signers owned slaves.

My point is that the situation is unclear in regards to what they always meant.


Scalia did sometimes vote liberal in his conservative approach. He also apparently was beholden to wealthy business people.

What is really interesting is that many conservatives side with lawsuit limits. Lawsuit limits almost entirely hurt the middle and lower class. Liability insurance though a problem is a relatively small cost of medical practice. It's actually only 2=3 percent by some sources.

If your wife gets harassed and pressure at work, I challenge anyone to really look into court remedy. It's actually almost impossible due to conservative bents.

Before you call me a liberal, I've only voted for one Dem in my life, and that was a House race.

My main point? It's complicated.

 

That's why there is an amendment system. That system allows changes, but requires more than the whim of whatever party is in power at the time.

 

If it's a "living document" then we have no rights at all and the government has no limitations on powers. If 51% of the electorate wants to put the other 49% of the electorate in camps, and they have 5-4 majority in the SC that upholds them, then they can do just that.

These arguments were batted back and forth for several years by some very smart men before the Constitution was ratified. That's why the Bill of Rights was added on top of the basic document, to delineate Federal powers and States and People's rights. All in all in all, it's a very flexible system that allows changes through the amendment process, but does not allow mob rule with a mere majority.

I hate to Godwin a thread, but one has merely to look at the Weimar Republic to see how a weak constitution can be subverted by the mob.

 

My point being that Constitutionalism taken to the nth, would not allow for all that many amendments.

The US certainly does not have a weak constitution. That said, any country would unravel with what happened in German during and after WW1, strong constitution or not.

The US already has areas that most people cannot venture into.

If you look at Illinois and see what is happening, the US may not be as far from mob rule as one likes to think. Illinois is broke with no fix possible. Many like to blame Chicago and so called hand out mentality, but the fact of the matter is that it's about crony capitalism at it's finest. The pension system has little to do with minorities on welfare. The state can't possibly dig out of 200 BN on that alone.

The building projects with major businesses are the real problems.

Now we have major flight out of the state.

 

part of the problem is conservative vs liberal.....politicians vote for their party, not for what is right....a perfect example was the Clinton impeachment votes !!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_and_acquittal_of_Bill_Clinton
check out the voting on this link...mostly Dems not guilty, R guilty .....more than clear that he commtited perjury.......those people should've been thrown out !

 

Completely agree. But in matters of judicial review, it's not so easy to define. My son is a JAG Captain. It's really interesting listening to his input.

The same thing happened under Iran Contra as well, politically speaking.

 

The Amendment system is part and parcel of the Constitution. Most of the amendments expand liberties; abolishing slavery, votes for women, etc. It seems to work as it is supposed to.

 

Not true. The original Constitution would not have been ratified without the first ten amendments, our Bill of Rights. The amendment process was specified in Article 5 of the main document:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

So how could a strict Constitutionalist not allow for amendments? We presently have a total of only 27 Amendments since the original ratification, this includes the original ten necessary to insure ratification of the main document. The 13th Abolishes slavery, a good thing. Two reverse one another. the 18th Prohibits the production of alcoholic beverages, and the 21st reverses it. Most expand rights, the 15th insures the right to vote without regard race, color or condition of previous servitude. The 19th extends the right to vote to women. The 23rd extends representation in Presidential elections to the District of Columbia. The 24th prohibits the denial of the right to vote due to non-payment of taxes or poll taxes. The 26th extends the right to vote to 18 year olds.

 

I understand that entirely. It's just when people say they are Constitutionalist, they often are saying cliches without going deeper. The Constitution is a highly complex document with a whole lot of gray and changes. People use cliches often because of something they don't like. I"m speaking to those who call themselves Constitutionalists. Not if the document can be amended.

Saying one has a strict view of the Constitution is silly. It depends entirely of one's political view.

The Republicans can never win this round even if they delay things until Obama is gone and assuming a Republican will win. A 4 - 4 vote will generally go to the liberals then. If they lose the court could even be more liberal. But then again, liberal and conservatives can agree on the same subject and still hold to their views.

 

I think that is what separates those who are party pushers and those who have an independent political outlook. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican one needs to hold true to what he/she thinks is the proper handling of the issues, not because of some political dogma that a party hides behind. You can be liberal and conservative at the same time on specific issues. It depends on many factors: age, gender, prior experiences, financial standing, education, family history. Environment plays a hand in these matters.