Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Top five cliches liberals use to avoid real arguments …

By Jonah Goldberg April 27, 2012

One of the great differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will freely admit that they have an ideology. Were kind of dorks that way, squabbling over old texts like Dungeons and Dragons geeks, wearing ties with pictures of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke on them.

But mainstream liberals from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama and the intellectuals and journalists who love them often assert that they are simply dispassionate slaves to the facts; they are realists, pragmatists, empiricists. Liberals insist that they live right downtown in the reality-based community, and if only their Republican opponents werent so blinded by ideology and stupidity, then they could work with them.

This has been a theme of Obamas presidency from the start. A couple of days before his inauguration,Obama proclaimed: What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry (an odd pronouncement, given that bigoted America had just elected its first black president).

In his inaugural address, he explained that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.

Whether the president who had to learn, in his own words, that theres no such thing as shovel-ready projects after blowing billions of stimulus dollars on them is truly focused on what works is a subject for another day. But the phrase is a perfect example of the way liberals speak in code when they want to make an ideological argument without conceding that that is what they are doing. They hide ideological claims in rhetorical Trojan horses, hoping to conquer terrain unearned by real debate.

Of course, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats when it comes to reducing arguments to bumper stickers. (Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has written that the presidents economic experiment has failed. It is time to get back to what we know works.) But the vast majority of Republicans, Ryan included, will at least acknowledge their ideological first principles free markets, limited government, property rights. Liberals are terribly reluctant to do likewise. Instead, they often speak in seemingly harmless cliches that they hope will penetrate our mental defenses.

Here are some of the most egregious examples:

Diversity is strength

Affirmative action used to be defended on the grounds that certain groups, particularly African Americans, are entitled to extra help because of the horrible legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism. Whatever objections opponents may raise to that claim, its a legitimate moral argument.

But that argument has been abandoned in recent years and replaced with a far less plausible and far more ideological claim: that enforced diversity is a permanent necessity. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, famously declared: Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-run education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare.

Its a nice thought. But consider some of the great minds of human history, and its striking how few were educated in a diverse environment. Newton, Galileo and Einstein had little exposure to Asians or Africans. The genius of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato cannot be easily correlated with the number of non-Greeks with whom they chatted in the town square. If diversity is essential to education, let us get to work dismantling historically black and womens colleges. When I visit campuses, its common to see black and white students eating, studying and socializing separately. This is rounding out everyones education?

Similarly, were constantly told that communities are strengthened by diversity, but liberal Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has found the opposite. In a survey that included interviews with more than 30,000people, Putnam discovered that as a community becomes more ethnically and socially varied, social trust and civic engagement plummet. Perhaps forced diversity makes sense, but liberals make little effort to prove it.

Violence never solved anything

Its a nice idea, but its manifestly absurd. If violence never solved anything, police would not have guns or nightsticks. Obama helped solve the problem of Moammar Gaddafi with violence, and FDR helped solve the problem far too late of the Holocaust and Hitler with violence. Invariably, the slogan (or its close cousin War is not the answer) is invoked not as a blanket exhortation against violence, but as a narrow injunction against the United States, NATO or Republican presidents from trying to solve threats of violence with violence.

The living Constitution

It is dogma among liberals that sophisticated people understand that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. The idea was largely introduced into the political bloodstream by Woodrow Wilson and his allies, who were desperate to be free of the constraints of the founders vision. Wilson explained that he preferred an evolving, organic, Darwinian Constitution that empowered progressives to breathe whatever meaning they wished into it. It is a wildly ideological view of the nature of our political system.

It is also a font of unending hypocrisy. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives argued that the country needed to adapt to a new asymmetrical warfare against non-state actors who posed an existential threat. They believed they were working within the bounds of the Constitution. But even if they were stretching things, why shouldnt that be acceptable if our Constitution is supposed to evolve with the times?

Yet acolytes of the living Constitution immediately started quoting the wisdom of the founders and the sanctity of the Constitution. Apparently the document is alive when the Supreme Court finds novel rationalizations for abortion rights, but when we need to figure out how to deal with terrorists, suddenly nothing should pry original meaning from the Constitutions cold, dead hands.

By the way, conservatives do not believe that the Constitution should not change; they just believe that it should change constitutionally through the amendment process.

Social Darwinism

Obama this month denounced the Republican House budget as nothing more than thinly veiled social Darwinism. Liberals have been trotting out this Medusas head to petrify the public for generations. It does sound scary. (After all, didnt Hitler believe in something called social Darwinism? Maybe he did.) But no matter how popular the line, these liberal attacks have little relation to the ideas that the robber barons and such intellectuals as Herbert Spencer the father of social Darwinism actually followed.

Spencers sin was that he was a soaked-to-the-bone libertarian who championed private charity and limited government (along with womens suffrage and anti-imperialism). The reform Darwinists namely the early-20th-century Progressives loathed such classical liberalism because they wanted to tinker with the economy, and humanity itself, at the most basic level.

More vexing for liberals: There was no intellectual movement in the United States called social Darwinism in the first place. Spencer, a 19th-century British philosopher, didnt use the term and wasnt even a Darwinist (he had a different theory of evolution).

Liberals misapplied the label from the outset to demonize ideas they didnt like. Theyve never stopped.

Better 10 guilty men go free ...

At least until George Zimmerman was in the dock, this was a reflexive liberal refrain. The legendary English jurist William Blackstone the fons et origo of much of our common law said, Better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. In fact, this 10 to 1 formula has become known as the Blackstone ratio or Blackstones formulation.

In a brilliant study, n Guilty Men, legal scholar Alexander Volokh traced the idea that it is better to let a certain number of guilty men go free from Abrahams argument with God in Genesis over the fate of Sodom, to the writings of the Roman emperor Trajan, to the legal writings of Moses Maimonides, to Geraldo Rivera.

As a truism, its a laudable and correct sentiment that no reasonable person can find fault with. But thats the problem: No reasonable person disagrees with it. Theres nothing wrong with saying it, but its not an argument its an uncontroversial declarative statement. And yet people say it as if it settles arguments. It doesnt do anything of the sort. The hard thinking comes when you have to deal with the and therefore what? part. Where do we draw the lines? If it were an absolute principle, we wouldnt put anyone in prison, lest we punish an innocent in the process. Indeed, if punishing the innocent is so terrible, why 10? Why not two? Or, for that matter, 200? Or 2,000?

Taken literally, the phrase is absurd. Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail.

When you hear any of these cliches along with I may disagree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it, which is another personal favorite understand that the people uttering them are not trying to have an argument. Theyre trying to win an argument without having it at all.

tyrannyofcliches@gmail.com

Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of the National Review Online and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His book The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas will be published Tuesday.

Read more from Outlook, including:

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornsteins Lets just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

Five myths about conservative voters

Friend us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Read the original post:
Top five cliches liberals use to avoid real arguments ...

Conservative – Conservapedia

A conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of everyone else.

A conservative typically adheres to principles of personal responsibility, moral values, and limited government, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.[1][2]

Phil Crane, the leading conservative congressman in the House from 1969 to 2005, urged people to make the world a better place than where they found it, and quoted frequently from the Bible in pursuit of that goal.[3]

Former President Ronald Reagan said, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."[4]

For a more detailed treatment, see Modern conservatism.

Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

Movement conservatives are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite liberal ridicule. Movement conservative activists include:

Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. The most prominent conservative presidents include:

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter[5] names Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Elihu Root, and Theodore Roosevelt to the "Conservative's Hall of Fame," with John Adams as the greatest of American conservatives -- a dubious choice since President Adams was an ardent opponent of free speech to criticize government.

In America, most conservatives support the Republican Party, but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for John McCain and 20% for Barack Hussein Obama, with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)[6]

The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as mostly conservative on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves mostly liberal on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.[7]

Some findings: Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that Satan is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:

In October of 2009, Niles Gardiner reported in the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph:

Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are WorldNetDaily and NewsMax. Fox News, though often called conservative, tends to be more neoconservative than conservative.

Well known conservative magazines in the United States include National Review, Policy Review, The Weekly Standard and others.

Some notable conservative political blogs include the Heritage Foundation's Policy Weblog, Human Events, Michelle Malkin, Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as neoconservatives.[9]

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support bigger government and globalism, and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

Paleoconservatives are conservatives who are more focused on social issues and American sovereignty, and are suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean against foreign interventionalism. Neoconservatives criticize this with the pejorative term of "isolationism," as they believe in promoting democracy worldwide, even where different religious or value systems are incompatible with democracy-induced changes in control.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, Larry McDonald. He was also second Chairman of the John Birch Society, and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard Korean Airlines Flight 007 when it was shot down by the Soviets near Moneron Island in 1983.

For further details on the two related philosophies, see Fiscal conservatism and Social conservatism

Recently, a division has been created between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism centers around a low and balanced government budget, and generally is opposed to programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Its primary goal is to reduce government spending significantly. Social Conservatism, on the other hand, focuses on the moral issues of conservatism. A social conservative will oppose same-sex marriage, abortion, and the teaching of evolution in schools. The majority of Conservatives (including most of the Republican Party) fall into both categories, however some fall into one or the other, but not both. Notably, Libertarians are strong fiscal conservatives but are not socially conservative. For instance, the Libertarian Party Platform [10] expresses support for the fiscally conservative principles of ending publicly funded welfare and healthcare programs as well as reducing government spending overall significantly. However, it also expresses support for same-sex marriage (with some libertarians leaning towards the ultimate goal of total marriage privatization) as well as maintaining the legal status of abortion.

Some Republicans and Democrats also fit one category but not the other. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, was deemed "the most fiscally conservative governor" while he was in office (and probably earned that honor given all the spending cuts he made) but at the same time, he supports marriage privatization and abortion (though he believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned on Constitutional grounds). Also, several Democrats have expressed opposition to same-sex marriage and/or abortion, but still support liberal fiscal programs such as Social Security. They would be the opposite of Johnson - socially conservative but fiscally liberal.

Due to the explosive growth of global Christianity in traditional cultures and their influence on Western Christianity and the higher birth rate of conservative Christians and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America:

Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal morality, a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.

College-level teaching about conservatism has been distorted by a "liberal state paradigm"--that is, textbooks usually interpret recent American history in terms of the origins and successes of political liberalism--especially the New Deal, the welfare state, labor unions, and Civil Rights for blacks and equality for women. Conservative politics is usually defined as a reaction: as a free market reply to the growth of big government; as an expression of outrage against declining support for tradition and Christian morality. Where the violent Wobblies (IWW) and illegal sit down strikes of the 1930s are seen as heroic, exposing Communist subversion by Joe McCarthy is denounced as the nadir of political morality.[12]

The Loyalists of the American Revolution were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer Joseph Galloway and governor-historian Thomas Hutchinson. However when the crisis came, they stood with the Crown as it tried to destroy American political liberties. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. Samuel Seabury was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the Episcopal religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. While the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S., it survives in Canadian conservatism.

The Founding Fathers created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as Republicanism, which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the First Party System (1790s-1820s) the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting monarchy and aristocracy, they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. George Washington was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of Thomas Jefferson and his followers, especially John Randolph of Roanoke and his "Old Republicans" or "Quids." They idealized the yeoman farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to corruption, that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "judicial activism". [13] The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

During the Second Party System (1830-54) the Whig Party attracted most conservatives, such as Daniel Webster of New England. Daniel Webster and other leaders of the Whig Party, called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.[14]John C. Calhoun, a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. Richard Hofstadter (1948) called him "The Marx of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by Edmund Burke, the founder of British conservatism, in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with Civil Rights.

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus William J. Bennett (2006), a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, Know-Nothings, Copperheads and 20th century isolationists.

Since 1865 the Republican Party has identified itself with President Abraham Lincoln, who was the ideological heir of the Whigs and of both Jefferson and Hamilton. As the Gettysburg Address shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's Declaration. The Copperheads of the Civil War reflected a reactionary opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the Bourbon Democrats, led by President Grover Cleveland, preached against corruption, high taxes (protective tariffs), and imperialism, and supported the gold standard and business interests. They were overthrown by William Jennings Bryan in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the Democratic Party permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican William McKinley won using the pro-business slogan "sound money and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

William Graham Sumner, Yale professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with Social Darwinism under the influence of Herbert Spencer, he rejected evolution in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and paternalism in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.[15]

In the Progressive Era (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Theodore Roosevelt, the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a liberal he took a tough regulatory approach toward businesses and trusts, and (post-presidency) fought for social insurance for the elderly. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into World War I to stop what he saw as the German attacks on civilization. William Howard Taft promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the Supreme Court with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President Warren G. Harding. The presidency of Calvin Coolidge (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes Democracy and Leadership (1924) by Irving Babbitt and H.L. Mencken's magazine American Mercury (1924-33). The Efficiency Movement attracted many conservatives such as Herbert Hoover with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the Great Depression, other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high property taxes. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in Chicago which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself Southern Agrarians and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American Republicanism and civic virtue.

The Depression brought liberals to power under President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the New Deal and Roosevelt's powerful New Deal Coalition. In 1934 Al Smith and pro-business Democrats formed the American Liberty League to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal Alf Landon, who carried only Maine and Vermont. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President John Nance Garner. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal Conservative Coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator Robert Taft, a Republican of Ohio, and Senator Richard Russell, Democrat of Georgia.

In the United States, the Old Right, also called the Old Guard, was a group of libertarian, free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were isolationists in 1939-41, (see America First), and later opposed NATO and U.S. military intervention in the Korean War.

By 1950, American liberalism was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic Lionel Trilling could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." [16] But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine National Review, founded by William F. Buckley in 1955.

Whereas Taft's Old Right had been isolationist the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose communism. It looked to the Founding Fathers for historical inspiration as opposed to Calhoun and the antebellum South.

The success of the Civil Rights movement came in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but Barry Goldwater opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the Obama campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all New Deal programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of Ronald Reagan in California, and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for Richard Nixon in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion Hubert Humphrey, and southern demagogue George Wallace. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the Northeast who supported many New Deal programs).

The Republican administrations of President Richard Nixon in the 1970s were characterized more by their emphasis on realpolitik, dtente, and economic policies such as wage and price controls, than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of Ronald Reagan's presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and conservative principles dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with supply side economics as well as a strict opposition to Soviet Communism. Reagan promised to cut welfare spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised military spending and created large federal deficits that turned out working to our advantage, because at that time, deficits didn't matter. It should be known that the Republicans also balanced the budget in the late 1990s.

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "Reaganomics," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

"Forty percent of Americans now self-identify as conservatives double the amount of self-professed liberals largely because independents are beginning to take sides." [4]

Compare Progressive liberalism.

Australia was once more conservative than England but sweeping gun control laws pushed the nation leftward toward greater dependency on government in the last decade. In 2009, opposition to government control based on alleged global warming galvanized conservatives there and they led the Liberal Party of Australia to a repudiation of an emissions trading scheme.[17] Conservatives also support smaller political parties such as the Family First Party.

In the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party is the major partner in the governing coalition. The party's current leader, David Cameron,[18] has been Prime Minister of the UK since May 2010.

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as Tories, and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of laissez-faire economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for abortion on demand, gay civil partnership, the Kyoto Treaty and to oppose capital punishment (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) [19]

Margaret Thatcher revolutionized the British conservatives much like Reagan revolutionized American conservatives. During her tenure as Prime Minister, she cut taxes, trimmed back at government waste, and exercised a strong national defense abroad (including the Falklands War of 1982).

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in England and Wales than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in Northern Ireland and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in Scotland.

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the European Union.

The broadcast media (dominated by the BBC) is almost exclusively liberal in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Telegraph selling more copies than their rivals.[20]

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the French Revolution.

Several facets of conservatism function in unison to make it an effective and powerful philosophy. Conservatism emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and initiative; this allows the best of the public to rise to their natural level of achievement. Conservatives recognize that big government fosters dependency and stifles individual achievement--and thus, weakens society as a whole.

At the same time, conservatives also recognize that with individual freedom comes individual responsibility. In the absence of a hand-holding nanny state, it is imperative that each individual take responsibility for his own actions, and exercise his rights and freedoms wisely and with discretion. Thus, social conservatism is also critical to a successful society, as it emphasizes the importance of morality, duty, and responsibility to one's self and fellow men.

The rest is here:
Conservative - Conservapedia

Democrats (and Liberals) Hate America

Recently, I had a birthday. The great thing about getting older is that Im able to see patterns in life that I was not able to notice when I was younger. For instance, certain developments happen year after year, decade after decade, and by being able to see these kind of patterns, Im actually able to be a little bit ahead of the curve. One could even argue that some of this has made me a bit more cynical, too.

As an example, every year, I hear politicians talking about the national debt, but every year, it goes up. Im skeptical anytime I hear politicians discussing this issue because there is no evidence that they care about it at all. If they did care about it, they would act responsibly, reduce federal expenses, and actually pay down our debt. Or they would (at least!) pass policies that would actually increase economic growth so dramatically that the debt would be a much smaller percentage of our economy.

Then there are those who are always chanting for peace--despite the fact that, in human history, peace has not been the natural order of the world. There will always be war, tyranny, and dictators. War is literally part of the human condition. We might not like it, but it is what it is. The only thing that changes with regard to war is the technology used during wars. I always think it is quite funny how a few minutes chatting with some people playing a video game like Battlefield yields more common sense and rationality than politicians who have been in office for 40 years. As a recent example, I recently asked people in a video game whether the game should introduce Miranda warnings, requirements that the enemy actually shoot you before you shoot back, a requirement to determine how many women and children are located in a particular area, and a time out if you use excessive force against the enemy, etc, etc. The answers were colorful, but it is clear that they said no! Not a single dissent. If only people who played video games would be in charge of war!

On another random note: I have noticed that politicians promote college for all as some kind of pathway to the middle class. Since past college graduates have done quite well in life, there is an assumption that college is necessary for every single American. I personally believe that IQ probably explains more of the success that most college graduates of the past have experienced. Since half the population will have below average IQs, colleges have had to respond to the dumber students by creating remedial classes in math and English, as well as ridiculously lame majors like grievance studies. In the end, a lot of colleges are just graduating students with fancy degrees in useless majors and tons of debt.

More here:
Democrats (and Liberals) Hate America

Godless Liberalism, Godless Liberals, and American Politics

By Austin Cline

Updated September 30, 2014.

What is Godless Liberalism?

Godless liberalism should be defined as a liberal or progressive political perspective which doesnt rely on gods, divine revelation, or religion for its values, ideas, or policies. Because liberalism is hated by Americas Christian Right, and godlessness is hated even more, the label godless liberalism is usually used as a form of attack or insult. The label must be reclaimed because there is nothing about godlessness, liberalism, or the combination which deserves derision or hostility.

Christian Right vs. Godless Liberalism:

The nature of godless liberalism can be difficult to understand because of how frequently the label is misused by the Christian Right in America. According to them, all liberals are godless liberals because they dont adhere to a conservative evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity. Only conservative political policies are regarded as compatible with Christianity; therefore, all other policies are anti-Christian, anti-religious, and anti-God. Advocates are all thus godless liberals.

Who Are Godless Liberals?

If not all liberals or everyone opposed to contemporary American conservative policies is a godless liberal, then who are godless liberals?

Godless liberals base their liberal or progressive political policies on philosophical considerations independent of religion. Some liberals base their political positions explicitly on their religious values and religious beliefs, so they cant be considered godless liberals even if they are mistaken about what follows from their religion.

Are Godless Liberals All Atheists?

Whether godless liberals are atheists depends upon what the adjective godless is modifying: the person or their liberalism.

If it modifies the person, then they are atheists because being godless is what atheism means. If it modifies their liberalism, perhaps they arent all atheists. Its unlikely for religious believers to have political positions independent of their religious values, but not all theists are devoutly religious.

Is Godless Liberalism anti-Religion?

For people who see their god or their religion as the source of all order and morality, godless liberalism may be treated as impossible or even as a threat. The fact that godless liberals do not derive their political positions from religious doctrine does not make them anti-religious, though.

They may personally be anti-religion, but politically they may not be indeed, they may have no problem with making common cause with religious liberals.

What Do Godless Liberals Believe?

Godless liberals are, naturally, politically liberal but there is as much variety in their political positions as there are among liberals generally. Most will be pro-choice and anti-death penalty, for example, but not all are. Godless liberals even disagree on the value of religion and the role religion should have in society. They are not a monolithic force within liberal circles. If you want to know what a godless liberal believes, you have to ask.

Godless Liberalism and the Separation of Church and State:

Godless liberals may agree or disagree on a wide variety of political positions, but one common position is that church and state should be strictly separated. Godless liberals oppose basing public policy and civil laws on any religious doctrines or dogmas. This puts them in conflict with both the Christian Right and some liberal religious believers. Its one thing if someones position is influenced by religious values, but quite another to base a law on those values.

Godless Liberals and Liberal Believers:

That godless liberals do not use religious doctrines as a basis for political decisions doesnt prevent them from working with other liberals and progressives who do. One may oppose the death penalty for non-religious reasons and the other may oppose it for religious reasons, but both can work together to end capital punishment with little or not conflict. It all depends, probably, on how much the religious believer pushes their religious doctrines as the basis for political action.

What is the Basis for Godless Liberalism?

Its easy to say that godless liberalism isnt based on any religion or set of religious doctrines, but its harder to say what godless liberals do base their political beliefs on because there are so many non-religious philosophical systems. Some are humanists, some are objectivists, and some are communists. Many rely heavily on science and the scientific method because they have a strong orientation towards the sciences. If you want to know more, you have to ask.

Godless Liberalism as Political Smear:

Its not just uncommon for people to openly and proudly describe themselves as godless liberals, its almost unheard of. The most common context for the labels godless liberalism and godless liberals is a political attack from religious conservatives. For them, the concept of godless liberalism covers everything they think is wrong with modernity: the loss of religious traditions and Christian privileges, sexual license (which includes abortion, homosexuality, pornography, contraceptives, feminism, etc.), the separation of church and state, the triumph of science over superstition, and so forth.

When religious conservatives attack something in society, politics, or law which they dont like, theres a good chance that they will attribute the problem to godless liberals. Being godless, they fail to acknowledge or accept the commands which God expects everyone to follow. They have no reason to be moral, and thus their political positions lack a moral or divine foundation necessary to a well-ordered society.

The use of the word liberal is almost redundant from their perspective because its difficult for them to conceive of anyone adopting the correct conservative positions without a religious basis (and its true that godless conservatives are less common than godless liberals). Many act as though anyone who is liberal must necessarily be godless because no one who adopts liberal positions can possibly be a real Christian.

Many Democrats have sought to disassociate themselves from the label, treating it like the label "homosexual" was once treated. This is unfortunate because being a godless liberal is not inherently bad. There is nothing wrong with basing ones politics on something other than religion and there is nothing wrong with not being religious. When Democrats act as though godless liberal is bad, they lend credence to the prejudices of the Christian Right. Democrats should embrace godless liberals right alongside religious liberals.

Read the original here:
Godless Liberalism, Godless Liberals, and American Politics

Kady O’Malley: Tories go passive aggressive to pressure …

At this point, it almost doesnt matter if the Conservatives go ahead and put it to the House during tomorrows debate (although for obvious reasons, one cant help but hope that they do).

In one fell swoop, the Tories havemanaged to come up with what may be the most passive aggressive Opposition Day motion in recent parliamentary history, which appears (twice, for some reason) on todays Notice Paper, courtesy of House Leader (and former speaker) Andrew Scheer and finance critic Lisa Raitt:

That the House: (a) thank the independent non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidence-based analysis; (b) acknowledge their most recent Fiscal Monitor which informed Members and Canadians that, for the period from April to November 2015 of the 20152016 fiscal year, the previous government posted a budgetary surplus of $1.0 billion; and (c) concur in its conclusions and express its confidence in the Deputy Minister and his team.

How, one wonders, could the Liberals possibly vote against such a heartfelt paean to those tireless pennycounters toiling in the bowels of the finance department let alone an explicit expression of confidence in the deputy minister?

Yet if they support it, they will implicitly conceding a point that the Conservatives have been relentlessly attempting to drive home in recent days: namely, that when their party handed over the keys to the coffers, there was a billion dollar surplus that the new occupants seem distinctly reluctant to acknowledge.

That particular squabble has been raging in Question Period in recent days, with the Conservatives citing a December 2015 report from the department that they claim backs up their case. The Liberals, however, have consistently maintained that it was the outgoing government that left the country in the red.

We should find out whether the Tories will call that bluff later today, or choose to let the government off comparatively easy by choosing one of the other motions on notice for today, which includes an impassioned defence of the (likely soon to be mothballed) Office of Religious Freedom, as well an evergreen plea for an end to internal trade barriers.

But even if they dont use it tomorrow, it will live forever on the Order Paper, a shining example of the genre, and an inspiration for opposition strategists.

See more here:
Kady O'Malley: Tories go passive aggressive to pressure ...