Kaos: I can't keep 25% of the people on TV straight. It just so happens I knew these two!
I understand and respect your political convictions; diversity of opinion is one of the things that makes life interesting.
MI_Bowhunter: I think you raise an EXCELLENT point. This is precisely one of the reasons I became a hunter: I didn't think I was taking enough responsibility for the lives that ended to perpetuate mine. I felt like I was leaving the hard work to others. Turns out the "hard work" is a much more profound experience than I ever could have imagined!
PS: I'd love to read the vegetarian's defense of hunting if you can find it!
Straightarrow: Thanks for the thought-provoking post. I completely agree with the "big government vs. small government" distinction you draw.
You'll notice I said that "strict conservatives...resist change." What I meant to do there was describe an ultra-orthodox stance while allowing for a wide spectrum of "conservative" positions. I should have made that more clear; sorry for the confusion.
I also agree that there are "conservatives" who DO want change in a different direction from "liberals," but it seems to me that 4 out of 5 times that direction is backwards. Many "social conservatives" want to go back to a happier, simpler, Biblically-guided, Eisenhower-era America. I think that this is an understandable, even attractive, idea. I also think that it is an impossibility.
I would also differ with you on the goal of "liberalism" generally defined.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
They want government control of everything, ie, education, welfare, health, morals, etc,.
...Liberals believe they must protect everyone from all evils with laws that restrict and control everyone.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
I think this definition engages in the sort of generalizing that is dangerous; it's like saying, "All men who wear earrings are gay." (As I wrote above, I was trying to avoid this in my own posts, but may not have!) "Liberals"--as I understand them--think that part of government's job is to improve ONLY the lot of the "lowly" and to protect the "powerless," hence "bleeding hearts."
It is to this end only that strict "liberals" seek strong public education, welfare support, and public health. I've got to disagree with you on morals. In my experience, I see more "conservatives"--with the exception of pure "libertarians"--seeking to restrict freedoms in this arena. I think abortion and gay marriage are good examples. The conservative positions on these issues clearly--and ironically--fit your definition of the "liberal" ill which I quote above. Actually, many "conservatives" and many "liberals" are only pro-freedom when it comes to certain issues, e.g. guns for many of the former, sexual/reproductive issues for many of the latter.
These are my points in summary (should have done this long ago, eh?) <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>:
1. Boilerplate definitions of what all members of a group believe in or stand for break down quickly. If I engaged in definitions of that sort earlier a) I didn't mean to and I should have been clearer, and b) I hope I've been more precise this time around! <img src=icon_smile_blush.gif border=0 align=middle>
2. Neither "side" avoids hypocracy. I really don't think either affiliation is more for freedom or restriction; it just depends on the issues. I don't think that you and I can kid ourselves and say we stand on the side of Liberty, big L. Instead we stand on the side with which we agree on specific issues.
Thanks for the exchange. I appreciate your arguments and enjoy searching out the common ground. I'm happy to keep the discussion here, but maybe we should take this back-channel? We're getting pretty far from Andy Rooney! Feel free to email me.
Best.