The Liberal Movement

[Joe Wordsworth]

The flaw of the Left is that they're a conglomeration of dozens and dozens of seperate factions with agendas that don't necessarily intermingle.

I think that might be accurate.

 

[impressive]

My grandmother used to talk about her movements a lot.

 

[Guest]

I could use a liberal movement about now.

 

[elsol]

The flaw of the Left is that they're a conglomeration of dozens and dozens of seperate factions with agendas that don't necessarily intermingle.

I think that might be accurate.

I will be true about the Right soon enough also.

ElSol

 

[sweetnpetite]

The flaw of the Left is that they're a conglomeration of dozens and dozens of seperate factions with agendas that don't necessarily intermingle.

I think that might be accurate.

Conservatives are all the same.

Liberals are all different.

(In a generalizing way of course.)

It makes sence. If conservatives want to keep things the same (or go back to a specific era- ie the 195's) of course they agree on how things should be. But if liberals want things to change, they won't all agree on what to change or how. Just that they don't like the conservatives.

Plus, the very idea of conservatism holds within it more of a trend toward conformity, sameness and unity. while the idea of liberalism is more entwined with diversity and non-conformity. So it stands to reason.

But what's the solution? We can't demand conformity- that wouldn't be very liberal of us? Maybe we can agree on some common ground and keep the focus there?

 

[gauchecritic]

THE flaw? Do they have only one? With so many different ideas on the go I think they're probably happy at that.

Or maybe it's just that the liberals are far too broad to be kept under one umbrella.

I think a more probable answer would be that they are a conspiracy.

 

[Goldie Munro]

The flaw of the Left is that they're a conglomeration of dozens and dozens of seperate factions with agendas that don't necessarily intermingle.

I think that might be accurate.

Is it a flaw to be part of disparate factions? Is the Right a Whole?

 

[Guest]

I think that might be accurate.

I'm surprized at you, Joe, given the nature of accuracy, usually, in your comments. I no longer know what "the Left" is. Plus someone can be "Left" in one area of life, and "Right" in another, and still middle-of-the-road somewhere else.

Yeah, I get the gist of the statement, just surprized you posted it. Or were you being centrist?

Perdita

 

[LadyJeanne]

Is there really a liberal movement? I haven't seen it.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Is there really a liberal movement? I haven't seen it.

The Lambada.

 

[Guest]

The Lambada.

Ah ha ha, hur hur hur. P.

 

[LadyJeanne]

The Lambada.

Ahhhh, the forbidden dance. Liberal, groping and grinding movement. Got it now, thanks.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Agreed with Joe.

I'd push it further as well. My gut instinct - totally unbacked with factual evidence, thank you, and based purely on notoriously useless anecdotal evidence - is that conservatives tend to be people who like life to have some hard and fast rules, and for those rules to be applied evenly. Liberals tend to be people who prize variance and difference, and who like to see rules bent or modified.

Given those natures, it makes sense for the right to cohere more than the left.

Shanglan

 

[Goldie Munro]

Agreed with Joe.

I'd push it further as well. My gut instinct - totally unbacked with factual evidence, thank you, and based purely on notoriously useless anecdotal evidence - is that conservatives tend to be people who like life to have some hard and fast rules, and for those rules to be applied evenly. Liberals tend to be people who prize variance and difference, and who like to see rules bent or modified.

Given those natures, it makes sense for the right to cohere more than the left.

Shanglan

Vive la difference!!

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Agreed with Joe.

I'd push it further as well. My gut instinct - totally unbacked with factual evidence, thank you, and based purely on notoriously useless anecdotal evidence - is that conservatives tend to be people who like life to have some hard and fast rules, and for those rules to be applied evenly. Liberals tend to be people who prize variance and difference, and who like to see rules bent or modified.

Given those natures, it makes sense for the right to cohere more than the left.

Shanglan

The flaw of the Right is that they're a conglomeration of dozens and dozens of similar agendas from factions that don't necessarily intermingle.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I don't know. There's a lot of ideological self-denial going on. The left seems to be coalescing more due to pure hatred and with a few leaders willing to show that someone in the world cares what they think, there could be a new leftist or liberal revolution.

The right on the other hand, might be pushing the boundaries of the agreement. Many ideologies may have been fine accepting their wildly differing agendas at the beginning, but many have pushed things too far. Moderate old-school conservatives balk at the lack of fiscal restraint and are beginning to wonder if like the racist/sexist segment of old Dem voters, they might have to jump the line to be heard and repsected. On the same note, the ideologies are forcing people to defend things that are horrific to their values. Hunters are having to defend the obliteration of all forests, strict and devout Christians are having to defend torture and Randist foreign policy, and Randist economists are having to defend movements to duplicate Iranian theocracy.

While such self-denial is unfortunately often heard in a two-party system (see feminists biting their tongues for Clinton), there is a limit to it. Already in the game of human lives and emotions that is politics, midwestern hunters are switching to join environmentalists in order to keep their hobby and because the NRA now owns everyone. And fiscal conservatives are beginning to note that libs are being more prudent than cons right now and are tired of being treated like "given" votes and traitors by their political bosses.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Well argued, Luc.

"Of all men his wisdom is the highest / That reckoneth not who hath the world in hand."

I'm starting to think Ptolomy has a point there.

Shanglan

 

[Quiet_Cool]

THE flaw? Do they have only one? With so many different ideas on the go I think they're probably happy at that.

Or maybe it's just that the liberals are far too broad to be kept under one umbrella.

I think a more probable answer would be that they are a conspiracy.

Actually, I think gauche touched down on something, though I don't know that he meant what I saw in it. Not the "conspiracy" comment either.

Basically, the Liberals tend to be far too broad, yes. Conservatism represents the way things are, and while they might not be easily defined (and we mostly won't agree on any given definition), they truly are a certain way. Liberalism represents changes, and so many things can change that it leaves us uncertain what to expect, especially when you've got som many Libs in office who want so many different things, and more so when you have individual candidates that want to change everything. Not to say anyone's right or wrong, but people are more comfortable with what they know than many of us are aware.

Moreover than that. Conservatism is something we see in action and have known all our lives, because it's been there for the most part. Changes have occurred, yes, but mostly, things have followed a general line. Liberals are mostly offering ideas[b/b] of things they want to change, and while ideas are where all changes begin, they're also just words on paper, or spoken aloud, not the way of the world that we're comfortable with.

Just my thoughts, but then, I thought then as I typed, which means there are plenty of holes in there to drive those semis through.



Q_C

 

[Pure]

Quiet Cool

Conservatism represents the way things are, and while they might not be easily defined (and we mostly won't agree on any given definition), they truly are a certain way. Liberalism represents changes, and so many things can change that it leaves us uncertain what to expect, especially when you've got som many Libs in office who want so many different things, and more so when you have individual candidates that want to change everything. Not to say anyone's right or wrong, but people are more comfortable with what they know than many of us are aware.

Moreover than that. Conservatism is something we see in action and have known all our lives, because it's been there for the most part.
------

Somehow it seems you are unfamiliar with the Patriot Act.

And the present US budget.

(Or maybe Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie etc. are not conservatives.)

-----
on the thread topic: probably the left, what's left of it, is more splintered than the right. From Reagan and Gingerich onwards, some of the coalitions mentioned by Luc have formed. And the 'get the government off our backs' shtick accompanied by military muscle flexing (i.e., spending a lot of taxpayer money with the 'right' companies) has proved a winning formula. Bush and Co. simply brought Jesus on board too -- and created a little monkey shines side show in the orchestra conductor's box.

 

[scheherazade_79]

The flaw of the Left is that they're a conglomeration of dozens and dozens of seperate factions with agendas that don't necessarily intermingle.

I think that might be accurate.

I'm reading Michael Moore's Downsize This, and he's saying that the Left and the Right are pretty much the same. I like that idea. It's much easier to understand.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Is the left the people who wear bright colors and want to make the world a better place?

Is the right the people who go to church and work hard all week at dull jobs to provide for their families?

Is the middle the militant fucks who want everybody to agree with them or die?

Don't take this the wrong way Joe, its a serious question, who are you, and who are they?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The right is more homogenous than the left. That isn't surprising, since conservatives, in general, wish to keep the status quo or move slowly to change. The left, tnds to hate the status quo and wants to move quickly to whatever they see as better.

That said, politically, the right is becoming just as splintered as the left. There is a difference between conservative and reactionary. Old school conservatives have serious problems with the melding of religion and politics, the fiscal irresponsibility and the wholesale changes that the neo-cons endorse and are putting into practice.

Old school conservatives find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea. the neo cons at least pay lip service to and endorse some conservative measures. The Dems do neither. If you split, you will loose, if you stay, you will loose.

Liberals face a more entrenched problem, their party, in an attempt to be all inclusive, now encompasses groups whose programs are diametrically opposed. thus it has been easy for the GOP to use wedge issues to pry large segments of voters they count on away from them.

 

[rgraham666]

The current misunderstanding is a classic case of the dictatorship of the vocabulary.

The Shrubbies and their supporters are not conservatives. They are revolutionaries. They have hijacked the term 'conservative' and are using it to hide their actual objectives. 'Conservative' has connotations of care and limitation. So people accept that the Shrubbies possess these qualities.

They have also hijacked the term 'liberal' and apply it to all things that oppose them. Whereas 'liberal' once had other, less evil connotations, it is now used as a word of condemnation. Have you noticed very few people will allow themselves to be called 'liberal', even those on the 'left'? We've accepted the new meaning of 'liberal' as a reflection of the truth.

If we want to use a simple polar definition for politics, I think Jefferson's is the most useful.

There are those who distrust the people and so seek to draw all power to themselves. And others who regard the people as the most honest repository, if not always the wisest.

A bit of a misquote, but that's the spirit of it.

Jefferson used the term 'aristocrats' and 'democrats'. I think this works better.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Jefferson used the term 'aristocrats' and 'democrats'. I think this works better.

Only if one assumes that those are the only two options.

 

[rgraham666]

That generally seems to be the assumption when talking politics these days.