Lumpy Bumpy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 970 times:
In light of Californias gubernatorial race last week, there has been a lot of talk about what values the ideal Governor of California should embrace. Incumbent Gray Davis is hailed for his so called "liberal social values", whilst simultaneously frantically trying to cover up a non-debatable fiscal disaster.
By contrast the front runner-up Bill Simon is being blasted for his so called "social conservatism" yet no one is questioning his financial skills as a businessman.
It has been said that the ideal governor for CA would be someone that has the Social Values of Davis and the fiscal values of Bill Simon.
Is that a possible task? Isn't that to some degree an unattainable goal? Aren't the two concepts inextricably intertwined? To be socially liberal would be to promote (but not be limited to) such programs as increased funding for various social programs such as taxpayer funded health care for the poor, subsidized housing and living expenses, and so on. These are by definition undeniably "liberal" social programs.
Yet at the same time, they are a financial disaster. When a hard working, two income family with two children who have never relied on Government assistance cannot afford to buy a house, it makes it very difficult (from a financial, not a moral perspective) to justify such lavish handouts at the expense of the taxpayers. Especially during this period of economic underachievment and skyrocketing housing costs out in CA.
So in light of this recession, it would seem to make sense to curtail or outright eliminate such taxpayer funded programs-hence being fiscally conservative. But if anyone were to do that, then the voters-gettting what they wished for-fiscal responsibility-will suddenly turn against that person-for being socially "conservative", and vote him out of office.
And looking at the flip side, someone that is being socially "liberal" by handing out all of these social programs will be eaten alive for financial recklessness.
So in essence, it is a vicious cycle, a Catch-22. And the people of CA appear to be wishing for something that cannot be accomplished.
So perhaps some of you can clarify what you mean by "socially liberal" and "financially conservative".
And as a post script: Exactly how did the term "conservative" earn such a negative stigma?
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 954 times:
Exactly how did the term "conservative" earn such a negative stigma?
The same way the term "Christian" is getting there...when it gets hijacked by petty self-promoters with only enough imagination to stir dissent, not unity....when arrogance breeds the notion that the term is a trademark of only a narrow collection of hardcore idealogues..(How many times has Jerry Falwell gone on national tv to speak "from the Christian point of view"? I'm a Christian, and he doesn't speak one iota for me......in fact I happen to think there's a special corner in Hell waiting for that jackass.)
When a group of similar minded people allow their extremes to define them?....well, there ya go.
In any case, the two phrases have become more of a marketing tool than anything else.
Yet at the same time, they are a financial disaster
Sorry, Lumpy, but the biggest financial disaster of the recent past can be laid on the conservative doorstep. How many 'liberal' social programs could have been funded with the tens of billions pissed away by Enron execs?
How many prescriptions for seniors could have been made affordable by the incredulous amount of bank just handed over to Boeing to RENT some airplanes for the military?
I think conservative reason has added a lot of positives to issues like welfare and race quotas. It might be time for a little liberal common sense to reign in the corporate cowboys and pork barrel riders.
Lumpy Bumpy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 948 times:
Thanks for the reply Heavymetal. However, you seemed to evade answering the main question. The views that I presented were not necessarily those of my own. If I led you to believe as such, I stand corrected.
Mcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 948 times:
Lumpy Bumpy wrote: "To be socially liberal would be to promote (but not be limited to) such programs as increased funding for various social programs..."
Not necessarily. Most 'economic conservatives' are really economic liberals -- they favour giving the market the freedom to govern itself, with governments acting as referees instead of as coaches yelling out orders to players on the field.
Social liberals apply the same logic to peoples' personal lives. For example, they may favour experimenting with alternatives to heavy-handed drug laws, or allowing same-sex unions or marriages -- two positions taken by The Economist, a magazine that combines the two strains of thought without contradiction.
The real contradiction is in cases where people demand more economic freedoms while calling for more social regulation or micro-management, or vice versa. You can't increase freedom in one area without feeding demand for more freedom in other areas.
Lumpy Bumpy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 943 times:
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. Are you suggesting that I am not who I say I am?
Who are these Matt D, Whippy, and Saloth Star and others people you are referring to?
I have noticed that conservatives are a pretty rare breed on this site. And when they do appear, they usually take a lot of abuse. Are you suggesting that there is only one actual conservative posing as several people?