Jump to content
Science Forums

Liberal Conservatism


gubba

Recommended Posts

Good-day folks,

 

just finished reading the thread; "FOXnews versus ALJERZERA" that ran a couple of weeks back before I had discovered this fun forum. As an old radical of the

australian left I was struck by the difference between my perception of politics and those expressed by the mainly american participants. To me and many fellow outsiders I suspect, much of your political discourse seems idealistic and rather narrow in perspective.Please me allow to apologise in advance for any insult I may have caused, I'd much rather migrate to the USA than China anyday! I cherish the depth of sincerity with which americans, by and large, hold to their fundamental belief in the sanctity of the ideal of "the individual". From where I sit, this appreciation of the value of the individual is the most attractive of the many values that underpins the best of the american political traditions, that which has been called by some as "liberal conservative". From Clinton to Eisenhower, Rockefeller to Carter, whether deemed a success or failure, the humane side of either republican or democrat leaders in the States have often struck me as exemplars to varying degrees of the best of liberal conservatism.

 

Indeed almost the whole of public american political discourse is imbedded within the imagery of this tradition. To me a liberal conservative is one who believes in the following; liberal- progress,individual freedom, tolerance and (I would include) generosity. conservative- moderation, respect for ideals and/or traditions,belief in private property and especially free enterprise, a mixed economy [by which I mean the recognition of some active role for the political state in the workings of the nations economy].In theory, for someone like me, there is a fundamental lack of acceptance of the importance of the well being of our communities and of our social responsibilities and duties, as adults, to take cognizance of the welfare of not just ourselves. In practise, from what I can ascertain from afar, many american communities appear to be much more communal and caring for those regarded as within their circle than most of suburban australia. Perhaps we here expect our governments to do our social duties for us?

 

Be all that above as it may, if one equates the left with concern for the wellbeing of the community and the right with concern for the individual, then one sees the american state as firmly,though usually moderately, leaning towards the right. I would welcome everyone's views and again would like to stress that I hope I have caused little offence, cheers gub.

ps. whew! apologies for the length!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over simplification is okay up to a point, but the "right-left" thing is a lot more complicated. So complicated that I'll just comment on one item for now. When you talk about left-right it has to be attached to "social" "fiscal" or some other moniker. Your point about:

one equates the left with concern for the wellbeing of the community and the right with concern for the individual
is wrong when it comes to "social conservatives" who have been advocating for "communitarianism" for many years. To liberals this word is a euphemism for elimination of all privacy laws so that scoflaws can be rooted out, whether they're committing acts of terrorism or consuming illicit substances. John Ashcroft was on record basically advocating a complete elimination of any privacy or restrictions on law enforcement for any reason (e.g. the so-called "Patriot" act), and is one of the long time advocates of communitarianism. It basically says that the focus on the individual is immoral and should be eschewed.

 

Long ago the Republican party used to be a magnet for libertarians, and there still are lots of them (e.g. the Log Cabin folks), but the social conservatives have completely taken control of the party (e.g. Shiavo case).

 

Things are LOTS different down under. You might think of yourselves as more conservative, but you're also more liberal. On the whole, the Aussies I know--while sometimes a bit chauvinist for my taste--are actually a lot more middle of the road than where America seems to be going with overboard polarization being driven by self-serving political interests (e.g. Tom DeLay)....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be all that above as it may, if one equates the left with concern for the wellbeing of the community and the right with concern for the individual...

Ahh, but the political landscape is not just left or right, it is up and down as well. Both the left and right infringe on the liberty of the individual. Take the world's smallest political test to see some of the differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over simplification is okay up to a point, but the "right-left" thing is a lot more complicated....When you talk about left-right it has to be attached to "social" "fiscal" or some other moniker.
Absolutely true.
...John Ashcroft was on record basically advocating a complete elimination of any privacy or restrictions on law enforcement for any reason (e.g. the so-called "Patriot" act), and is one of the long time advocates of communitarianism.
B- I have seen you pick on this before, and it is the only thing I have seen you write that seems extreme. The Patriot Act had a couple of flaws in it (like the feds witing their own warrants without a judge), but the flaws were not abused by the feds. Further, the strengths of it (notably, sharing information between agencies, and roving wiretaps) outweighed the flaws. I do not think this was extremist legislation, and the weaknesses in it are readily reparable. I was no particular fan of Ashcraft, but I think he took far too much heat for this.
Long ago the Republican party used to be a magnet for libertarians, and there still are lots of them (e.g. the Log Cabin folks), but the social conservatives have completely taken control of the party (e.g. Shiavo case).
As a point of clarification for our friends down under, this is a comment about the Republican leadership, not the Republicans. The rank and file of the Republican party are not in synch with the social conservative bent of the Republican leadership, and are, in fact, much more in synch with about 2/3 of the Democratic party rank-and file on most social issues.
Things are LOTS different down under. You might think of yourselves as more conservative, but you're also more liberal.
B- You broke you own rule here :). I couldn't tell what issues you were thinking about. I have regarded Australians as very similar to the US on a range of political issues. (foreign engagement, rights of individuals, responsibility of individuals, tax load).

 

Further, they have the incredibly important attribute of deep appreciation of beer.

On the whole, the Aussies I know...are actually a lot more middle of the road than where America seems to be going with overboard polarization being driven by self-serving political interests (e.g. Tom DeLay)...
Tom Delay is no more a center of the Republican party than Tom Daschle or Patrick Leahy are centers of the Democrats. Delay is too easy a target.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....I have seen you pick on this before, and it is the only thing I have seen you write that seems extreme. The Patriot Act had a couple of flaws in it (like the feds witing their own warrants without a judge), but the flaws were not abused by the feds. Further, the strengths of it (notably, sharing information between agencies, and roving wiretaps) outweighed the flaws. I do not think this was extremist legislation, and the weaknesses in it are readily reparable. I was no particular fan of Ashcraft, but I think he took far too much heat for this......

 

Whether the Patriot Act is good or not is a reasonably moot point IMO. It needs to go because it is simply un-Constitutional.

 

In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

The gov't is trying to use military tribunals for peoples not in "the land or naval forces, or in the Militia".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely true. B- I have seen you pick on this before, and it is the only thing I have seen you write that seems extreme. The Patriot Act had a couple of flaws in it (like the feds witing their own warrants without a judge), but the flaws were not abused by the feds. Further, the strengths of it (notably, sharing information between agencies, and roving wiretaps) outweighed the flaws. I do not think this was extremist legislation, and the weaknesses in it are readily reparable.
Well, its all opinions, and I don't believe my views on the Patriot act are extreme, in fact the amusing thing is that as many people on the "right" seem to be scared of it as on the "left," and I'm not talking about the "Black Helicopter/World Government" nuts out in the woods either. As Fish sez, its plain unconstitutional, and trusting the law enforcement to do the right thing has proven again and again throughout history to be a really bad idea. Moreover, the most important point is that while I agree that there are things in it that are good, the current Administration and Congressional majority is *unwilling* to even *discuss* the flaws, and I don't think you need to be extremist to be scared about that....
Further, they have the incredibly important attribute of deep appreciation of beer.
Cheers!
Tom Delay is no more a center of the Republican party than Tom Daschle or Patrick Leahy are centers of the Democrats. Delay is too easy a target.
Reread what I wrote: the point is that he is now considered a wacko by mainstream registered Republicans--if you look at the poll numbers, he might even lose his home district if there was another Republican on the ballot--but the Administration and all those buddies in Congress that he has the goods on are lining up in support of him. He might not be representative of your average Republican, but right now he basically has more power to influence the government right now, *including* the president....Scary!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I don't believe my views on the Patriot act are extreme, in fact the amusing thing is that as many people on the "right" seem to be scared of it as on the "left,"...
I admit I may have read too much into what you said. But I think this legislation is easily fixable, and the flaws really have been of relatively little import to date. Parts of the law are probably unconstitutional (and it has been ruled as such by three separate appellate court rulings) so it will be resolved by the Supreme Court as a normal part of the judicial process.
Moreover, the most important point is that while I agree that there are things in it that are good, the current Administration and Congressional majority is *unwilling* to even *discuss* the flaws...
True, but the nice thing is they won't have to. The SC will throw out the 3 unconstitutional parts, and it will remain a workable piece of enforcement legislation. I agree it would be nice if the Federal congress would debate it, but I am not holding my breath. I would like the Federal congress to show some understanding of tax policy as well. That is not likely to happen either, and it is probably far more important.
Reread what I wrote: the point is that he {Tom Delay} is now considered a wacko by mainstream registered Republicans--if you look at the poll numbers, he might even lose his home district if there was another Republican on the ballot
And I suspect Delay probably should be thrown out (and I can think of another half dozen that I would eject from both sides of the aisle, too). I don't think Delay is considered a wacko by the Republican rank-and-file, but I do think he is considered unethical. There are a LOT of folks in the federal legislature in THAT bucket.

 

B- I do apologize if I misinterpreted what you said, but I was really trying to clarify the issue for our Australian thread-starter. Thanks for clarifying again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one more note: I've got some extremely conservative friends who've been shaking their heads about DeLay, on both the Shiavo case as well as on the Goebles-like big lie response to the corruption charges: they think its evidence that he's totallylosing his marbles to take up a cause that 70% strongly believe is the wrong way to go, and sounding like he truely believes his paranoid rantings about a vast left-wing conspiracy.

B- I do apologize if I misinterpreted what you said, but I was really trying to clarify the issue for our Australian thread-starter. Thanks for clarifying again.
No need for the appipolylogy! Folks around here will tell ya I'm a pretty copacetic gal! A belated welcome from me to this crazy place!

 

Cheers!

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one more note: I've got some extremely conservative friends who've been shaking their heads about DeLay, on both the Shiavo case as well as on the Goebles-like big lie response to the corruption charges...
I have been shaking my head as well. Although I have to admit I have even lower regard for Patrick Leahy than Delay. But it is sort of a tough call.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I may have read too much into what you said. But I think this legislation is easily fixable, and the flaws really have been of relatively little import to date. Parts of the law are probably unconstitutional (and it has been ruled as such by three separate appellate court rulings) so it will be resolved by the Supreme Court as a normal part of the judicial process. True, but the nice thing is they won't have to. The SC will throw out the 3 unconstitutional parts, and it will remain a workable piece of enforcement legislation.

 

 

It probably is still a big deal to those interneed "indefinatly" and those that are deported to countries because of their use of torture, (See Syria and Maher Arar. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A522-2003Nov4&notFound=true ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It probably is still a big deal to those interneed "indefinatly" and those that are deported to countries because of their use of torture, (See Syria and Maher Arar. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A522-2003Nov4&notFound=true ).
Fst- I understand the concern on this issue, but I don't think it has any relationship to the Patriot Act, except that the FBI and CIA could now talk about a suspect if they so desired.

 

The general issue here is the ability of the various US security agencies to act covertly and defensively in times of war. This problem predates the Patriot Act, and is still a problem post Patriot Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think this legislation is easily fixable, and the flaws really have been of relatively little import to date.

Some famous person, Franklin?, said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and loses both." or something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gov't is trying to use military tribunals for peoples not in "the land or naval forces, or in the Militia".
FsT- I think I understand the issue here as well, but I don't think this had anything to do with the Patriot Act either. This issues relates to pre-existing legislation and their associated regulations for military tribunals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general issue here is the ability of the various US security agencies to act covertly and defensively in times of war. This problem predates the Patriot Act, and is still a problem post Patriot Act.

 

Right, but the term "times of war" is now changing rapidly (or already has changed). Recently, "war" has become a more shadow-y, less cut and dry term. We've been in perpetual "war" for the last 10-15 years, since the first World Trade Center bombing, if you define it like the current administration has. Given the definition they use when implimenting and discussing the Patriot Act (something like "somebody, somewhere, doesn't like us and may do something about it sometime, somewhere"), those powers granted by the Act have the potential to be used ALL the time- appropritate times and non-appropriate times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some famous person, Franklin?, said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security deserves neither and loses both." or something similar.
I like the quote, but we are a nation of laws, and some of those relate to enforcement of law. The core pieces of the Patriot Act that are valuable are 1) that domestic security agencies (e.g., the FBI) and non domestic security agencies (e.g., the CIA) can share information about an individual and 2) investigative security authorizations (like wire taps) apply to an individual in many settings not just one (e.g., a wire tap can tap all phones, not just one phone number).

 

We restrict freedom all of the time for the public good (think of speed limits). The issue is one of reasonability and balance of the rights of individuals against the rights of the community.

 

Should we start a separate thread on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...