The journey from there to here

One of our newer users has repeatedly accused me of being a neocon. Frankly, it's gone beyond ticking me off. The reason this person continues to use such grossly inaccurate labelling is because he has been trained and conditioned to see politics as left or right (with an occasional nod to the middle). The problem is, political and philosophical views go FAR beyond that.

One of the most appalling mistakes the Democrats have made, in my opinion, is not recognizing that fact. If you want to wear the tag of "liberal", you have to not only accept their perception of the problems in society, but their prescriptions for the solution to those problems. If you believe, for instance, that we need to care for the poor in the community, you must believe that the A, B, and C governmental mandated solutions to the problem are the answer, and in a de facto redistribution of wealth. You must believe in abortion on demand, in gun control, and in removing public expressions of religion from public view.

The fact is, I believe that, philosophically, the Democrats are right on many points. We SHOULD be compassionate individuals to the poor. But we should not be enablers of the poor. Many of the poor have become so through lifestyle choices that they have made and continue to make, and it is only through self reliance that they will ever see their way out of poverty.

And so, the question arises, then: am I a "compassionate conservative"? No, that label wouldn't fit either. I believe Bush and the GOP to be wrong on a great number of counts, it's just that I was raised to have a certain level of respect for the office, and I feel that there are enough in the media already attacking Bush that I don't need to add to their number.

I think that intelligent individuals should be capable of thinking beyond simplistic labels to sum up political views. Very few people that I have ever met have fallen CONSISTENTLY on either the left or the right side of the political spectrum. Take George W. Bush, for instance. He is a big government Republican, big government being the antithesis of conservative thought. He is also in many ways a compassionate conservative, having proposed programs such as a weighted Social Security system that would enable lower wage earners to retire with closer to average incomes that could have come right out of the DNC playbook.

Left-right political labelling is demeaning, and, almost completely inaccurate. Furthermore, it suggests a lack of intelligence on the part of the labeller, who cannot distinguish between an individual and an ideology. If we want to advance in our thinking, we have to discard this simplistic system.


Comments
on Dec 27, 2005

I totally agree!  And I know of whom you speak.  The simple fact is that on some issues, Bush is conservative, but on others, he is very socially liberal (Drug Program for one).  But to the far left, anything that does not bestow automatic nirvana for all, must be an evil conservative plot.  Indeed, on another article, an anon troll called you evil. for what?  For saying Food stamps should be reigned in.  You said cut, but made clear in your article that more controls and less throwing away of money was needed, yet this person, clearly capable of working by their own admission, denounced you.

There are others on the left that see everything as black and white.  Anything on the right is bad, anything on the left is good (there are some conservatives like that as well).  And they cannot even see the hypocrisy of their statements!  Even when confronted with solid, irrefutable facts!

It appears that while conservatives (not all) are willing to concede some points, and yes even disagree with Bush, the ones (not all, I can think of a couple) on the left are unwilling to concede any good from the right, and only evil.

And the ones in the middle?  Well, they are not stupid either.  They see the hypocrisy and most just tsk tsk and go on their way.  Some point it out.  Few buy the stupidity of the left's line of complete animal farm mentality.

You were once left.  You are now pretty much dead center as the parties define themselves (not as you define yourself).  Yet, it is clear, the left is ostracizing you, and wants nothing to do with you.  Bleating sheep cannot tolerate dissent.

on Dec 27, 2005
Thanks for another article idea!
on Dec 27, 2005
Excellent assessment of how a moderate approach to conservative or liberal thinking solves issues.

Take George W. Bush, for instance. He is a big government Republican, big government being the antithesis of conservative thought.


I will preface I like GWB. Is he perfect no, but then again nobody is and nobody in the office of President can make everybody happy campers, regardless of affiliation. Now, I have to take issue with your above remark. Not to defend GW, but to bring your comment into alignment with what's realistically possible from the office. There is no way GW or anybody else could have improved our economy, employment and funded our war against Terriorism without compromising the budget. Furthermore, our country has become accustom to providing extensive coverage to middle and lower income earners. When there isn't money, more in printed...it's that simple. However, in my home when there isn't money, there isn't money.
on Dec 27, 2005

How is "No Child Left Behind" fighting the war on terror?

I will concede certain big government points to Bush because he is a wartime president and whether I or any other civil libertarian likes it or not, wartime presidents often need greater control. But there are many domestic programs that have shown his big government tendencies, NCLB being one of those.

on Dec 27, 2005
Thanks for another article idea!


I guess that is me, and I am honored to inspire the Gideon!
on Dec 27, 2005
There is no way GW or anybody else could have improved our economy, employment and funded our war against Terriorism without compromising the budget


Well, not exactly! I agree with the intent, but not with the extent!
on Dec 27, 2005

There is no way GW or anybody else could have improved our economy, employment and funded our war against Terriorism without compromising the budget.

And, honestly, the first two objectives should not be Bush's job!

on Dec 27, 2005
But there are many domestic programs that have shown his big government tendencies, NCLB being one of those.


Recent Senate Vote regarding Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 - Vote Agreed to (50-50)

With Vice President Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote, the Senate passed this budget reconciliation bill that is intended to trim $40 billion from the deficit over five years.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein voted NO......
Sen. Barbara Boxer voted NO......

To support my contention that GW's Admin fights at almost every junction to cut spending.
on Dec 27, 2005

To support my contention that GW's Admin fights at almost every junction to cut spending.

I will only say most of the time (the medicaid drug bill and NCLB?)

on Dec 27, 2005
most of the time


Are you implying and extreme? If so, can't be all the time for "1" big simple reason.... Leadership is about making the best decisions for as many of the 280M folks in this country as possible...not just the conservative religious right faction of which I belong on the moderate side of them.

When it comes to medicaid programs, I put that on state and local leaderships influence. Reason is some states have a higher demand then others. It's not the Fed'l government's job, as it's not their job to pass out unemployment or guarantee education. Their able to foster leadership and pass it down to state and local levels where the cost burden for implementation and performance measurement should be on a need basis.

As for NCLB, It's had positive affects on our educational system in the valley school systems where I reside. Both my wife and I have careers yet "make time" to push when needed, otherwise help our son with his education, "all A's & 1 B".
Could it be that many school districts are filled with lazy non-performing teachers that don't want to measure up to any standards outside their own because that would require them to better their teaching skills and be more pro-active. Could it be that many parents don't want the NCLB to shine because that would require them to be pro-active in their children's schooling, and they just don't have time, and I could go on....
on Dec 28, 2005
I think the problem with left-right is a lack of dimension. It has only one dimension, yet it tries to cram every political issue known to man on it, not realizing that in order to be completely accurate, you need a dimension for everything you are trying to measure. Of course, I don't like this sort of labelling that much either, but in a world where a few parties attepmt to represent (or BS) the population, you have so many labels based on party names. It sucks, but unless we can eradicate the terms political left and right, we are stuck with it.
on Dec 28, 2005

As for NCLB, It's had positive affects on our educational system in the valley school systems where I reside. Both my wife and I have careers yet "make time" to push when needed, otherwise help our son with his education, "all A's & 1 B".
Could it be that many school districts are filled with lazy non-performing teachers that don't want to measure up to any standards outside their own because that would require them to better their teaching skills and be more pro-active. Could it be that many parents don't want the NCLB to shine because that would require them to be pro-active in their children's schooling, and they just don't have time, and I could go on....

Titan,

I could write a whole BOOK about the problems with the philosophy behind NCLB (mainly, it strives to bring every school up to the "average", disregarding the fact that that is statistically impossible), but the thing is, education is NOT the reponsibility of the FEDERAL legislature. Eliminating big government is about more than just cutting taxes, but about eliminating programs that intrude on the lives and liberties of the citizens (state CPS programs are a good example). In lowering taxes, Bush has actually done a pretty decent job. As far as shrinking the size of government, he has not only failed but he has accomplished the OPPOSITE!

on Dec 28, 2005

I could write a whole BOOK about the problems with the philosophy behind NCLB (mainly, it strives to bring every school up to the "average", disregarding the fact that that is statistically impossible), but the thing is, education is NOT the reponsibility of the FEDERAL legislature. Eliminating big government is about more than just cutting taxes, but about eliminating programs that intrude on the lives and liberties of the citizens (state CPS programs are a good example). In lowering taxes, Bush has actually done a pretty decent job. As far as shrinking the size of government, he has not only failed but he has accomplished the OPPOSITE!

Exactly!  That is why I am not a Bush sycophant!  I hoped he would at least try to shrink it, and he failed.  And as far as NCLB, I can tell you after working in education for over 10 years, that the feds do nothing execpt increase administrative over head.  Even the state does!  The biggest (and still not the best) bang for the buck is at the local level.  And you still get a lot of waste!  NCLB is just another power grab by the feds.