Conseratives want less government, liberals are intellectuals - problems?

What is wrong with this generalization? I don't have an issue with anyone's personal belief about the best government model for America. Popular opinion (as long as they vote) should drive policy and as we have seen the past fifty years - we have seen both the good and bad of both parties/beliefs based on who voted. I think most rational thinkers will see that the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations were a time when people believed in the American Dream. Same with the Kennedy/Johnson and Clinton terms. Obviously Bush Jr. and Carter will not be in that same boat.

When government gets bloated, it's time to cut back. When too many tax breaks have been given to given to groups who don't generate any additional jobs - it's time to raise their taxes. People who understand economic theory understand that supply side/trickle down wasn't really an honest attempt to stimulate spending, as so much, as a opportunity to realize a greater benefit for the people who were in charge at the time. People who understand rational thought should also understand that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and relaxation of drug enforcement laws are not an attempt to overthrow 200+ years of freedoms, they are a stop-gap until a majority of the voting population understands progression in society.

No one thought process is any better than the other. In fact, they can coexist well together, as long as, people understand that society changes over time and that progress will happen whether they want it or not (or they can move to an authoritarian society which restricts progress). Cheers!

 

Whatever else is in the OP, that the LW are generally "intellectual" in any meaningful way has never been the case. Our great intellectual traditions and legal institutions are actually based on the very opposite of modern leftism, strong property rights, individual liberties and limited government.

 

When was the last time that "conservatives" actually shrank the size of government?

 

The Constitution was specifically passed to increase the power of the US federal government over the states.

The Preamble begins with "We the People of the United States"; not "Me, Myself, and I."

 

How can you be "intellectual" if you are driven by emotions more than intellect?

 

The Founding Fathers based this nation upon the LIBERAL principles of individual rights.

 

[video=youtube;ZIpkdusnIkE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIpkdusnIkE[/video]

 

Your hatred of the fabled LW has blinded you to the topic at hand. You see roughly speaking there are equal numbers of intellectuals on both sides of the political divide. However it is the intellectuals on the left side of the political spectrum that have been most instrumental in moving society forward. Just think of all the liberal agenda that has come about, or is coming about. Same sex marriage, marijuana legalization, universal health care, police/justice system reform, increasing minimum wage... Surely you didn't think that it was the dumb people on our side that were behind the scenes engineering the progress that has been being made. No, the liberal agenda has moved ahead by the efforts of the intellectuals on our side.

Unfortunately for your side your intellectuals have been spending all of their time coming up with new ways to delude and fleece the rest of the flock.

 

There is absolutely zero material difference between these two monopolistic parties in Washington DC, other than those carefully crafted for the sole purpose of making you think that such material differences actually exist in the final analysis.

The real question is: Who controls the Money Supply?

When my follow Americans finally get around to asking this question and doing the necessary homework on properly answering it, THEN our nation will have a chance to heal itself and solve its long range problems. Until then, my fellow Americans are doing nothing more than sleeping while "elites" (alien to the notion of your genuine freedom) continue to rule the world by pulling your purse strings and forcing you deeper into Economic Slavery.

And, with such clarity I shall depart.

 

The Constitution was -ratified- (not "passed") by the states as an act of secession, the second act of secession in the country's history. The first act of secession was from a central monarchy in England, in many ways less powerful than our central government today. The second act of secession was when the states began ratifying the Constitution, and in so doing -seceded- from the Confederation (all the states followed eventually, and it was of course a peaceful secession, but a secession nonetheless). FYI "We the people" IS "Me, myself and I" irrefutably because "the people" is an abstraction composed of concrete individuals. "We the people" don't have any rights whatsoever, only individuals do, which we cede to the government. Or maybe you would like to tell us "we the people's" address or phone number?

The Constitution's limited, weak, enumerated central powers ceded by INDIVIDUALS to the government in a representative constitutional republic with democratic voting properties was nearly instantly perverted, as the framers knew it would be. My statements stand. Our great intellectual traditions and legal institutions are actually based on the very opposite of modern leftism, strong property rights, individual liberties, and limited government... so much more.

 

You could've saved a lot of words by just saying that I'm right.

 

"Liberals are intellectuals"


[video=youtube;I79wUEqBdQc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I79wUEqBdQc[/video]


[video=youtube;mm1KOBMg1Y8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8[/video]

 

A fallacy I have debunked many times here, guess it's time to do so again. The terms "liberal" and "conservative," but especially conservative, are not cohesive, historical political theories or systems, but -shorthand- useful in the NOW only, in differentiating political campaigns. In the remoteness of time, the terms become utterly useless... with an exception I will develop.

JFK was more "conservative" than Nixon in many ways, and Nixon more "liberal" in many ways than JFK. Same for the Tea Party, who are far closer to classically "liberal" than the modern LW.

The exception with the term "liberal" is that that word -does- have actual use in political theory and political philosophy, but ironically when used in that "classical liberal" way, it means more than anything Enlightenment Lockeanism, which is FAR far removed from what are called "liberals" today.

 

I probably should have, because let's face it, until you spend 5 years or so reading and carefully studying the Enlightenment, Locke, Kant, Hobbes, Rousseau, Mill (Bentham), Nozick, Rawls, the Constitutional Conventions, the Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, 500 or so law review articles and the same amount of SCOTUS cases and commentary, you are so far out of your depth discussing the US Constitution with me that my keystrokes are mostly wasted. Bless me for keeping at it anyway though!

- - - Updated - - -

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, uninformed as it may be.

 

While the AoC, (Articles of Confederation) did favor States over the Federal, one other problem was it gave each State the power of another, disregarding populations. I would ask you to remember today's Constitution, could not have been ratified, without the ratification of today's first ten amendments, most important there, being # 10. As we have failed to Amend the Constitution, as intended, laws and the people have tended to forget the process exist, the result being larger and more intrusive Federal, by the Court System (degree), NOT the people. That is "Me Myself and I....

 

Yet another failure on your part to debunk anything at all!

Individual rights is a liberal concept not a conservative one.

A government OF We the People, FOR the People and BY the People is a liberal concept not a conservative one.

The Founding Fathers embraced both of those liberal concepts and were willing to die for them if the need arose.

Until you can prove any of the above statements to be false you haven't debunked anything whatsoever.

 

The Constitution was created to balance power between the states and the federal government. As Sanskrit has also pointed out, "We the people" is not referring to society as a whole. Societies don't have rights, individuals do. Therefore the Constitution is a legal giving away of an individual's right to self government to a balance of power between three branches of Federal government, and the various State governments. By the way, no where in the Constitution can you find anything to suggest current leftist thought. Which also shows that the term "liberal" as the OP would use it, is not applicable to the founding Fathers' generation, and supports what Sanskrit has been saying.

 

Fallacious appeal to improper authority!

Ironic!

- - - Updated - - -

There is no "individual self government".

That would be ANARCHY!

 

Yes, that would be anarchy. You are right. We all give up our right to absolute control over our own lives to government through a legal document called The Constitution. Very good, I am glad its getting through to you.

 

Dealt with. Unresponsive.

 

Irony squared!

- - - Updated - - -

Ironic!

 

Are you sure you want to play this game?

Trump Supporters React to Outrageous Campaign Ads

[video=youtube;6MubunsD-7g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MubunsD-7g[/video]

 

1984.
Bush expanded it exponentially.

 

Here's the thing: words like "conservative" and "liberal" are vague and overloaded. And party politics is outdated. People have to figure out where they stand on specific issues, and try to find candidates whose positions line up with their views. For instance, I consider myself a fiscal conservative and like the idea of a small federal government, because I believe the best use of government happens at the state and local levels. However, on most social issues, I tend to lean more liberal (or maybe that's libertarian, although I've often wondered why it isn't "conservative" as well), believing that the government really has very little legitimate business sticking its nose into people's bedrooms or patient's hospital rooms. So again, I can say what my position is on most specific issues (and why I feel the way I do), but I don't fit easily under any of the typical political banners. And I think this is true of a lot of the younger voters as well, they'll vote on the basis of issues or personalities, not necessarily parties or labels.

But I have to say that the idea of liberals being the exclusive banner under which intellectuals sit is more than a little strange to me.

 

That's the typical liberal position, yes. Whether or not one buys into it is a matter of political perspective.