I don't see how this is circular logic. The two terms are not just defined as opposites, their are ideological opposites, even though a government can support some both, but only in different aspects of the economy. If the two terms were just defined as opposites, then you could an argument based on circular logic. I think a good example of this is Communism and Fascism. The only argument that they're different is that they're opposites, or that they disliked one another.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

They could sometimes be entwined but so what? Politics is about a lot more than what sort of laws should be passed regarding the economy. Politics concerns all issues and what is "right" or "wrong" in regard to those issues.
I think you should just have more parties. Makes the problem of representing many different views on everything liable for law-making much simpler.

The "issues" are simply the reflections of the fundamental ideology behind the different supports for them. However, people's self-interest interferes and they become ideologically contradictory, hypocrites, in other words, who favor better standards for themselves and not for others.

Let chaos reign! No laws would be made!

and besides, the coalitions needed to pass laws would be just like the two hypocritical parties we have today.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

I don't see what you mean. For example, the Libertarians are financially very conservative but socially very non-conservative. The Repubs are supposed to be very conservative financially and are certainly very socially conservative. You don't have a left party in the US but in Denmark the Enhedslisten party is financially and socially very non-conservative.

People, and politics, are a lot more complex than just the view on economics.

Libertarians are about as extreme right as you can go, besides anarchists. It's just a myth that the so called "socially conservative" fanatical Christians are really conservative. In my opinion, they would overthrow the government and establish a socialist regime in which everyone has to go to church for the good of society every Sunday and in which capitalism is a sin.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

In what sense is abortion, to name one issue at random, an economic issue?
There are currently 6 parties represented in the Parliament in Denmark. The current administration has been in office for over 6 years and lots of laws have been made and are being made.

Yes, Libertarians are financially very conservative, as I said, but socially very non-conservative. The Repubs incorporate the religious right and cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classified as socially progressive.

Economic conservatism supports the right to life, liberty, and property of every human being. Abortion is not directly an economic issue, but it has nothing to do with socially conservative views and moral religious beliefs. It concerns the right to life held by the unborn child. It is not a faith issue for those who I consider to be "economic" conservatives.

Denmark is a small country (no offense), so it is easier to pass laws for the country. The interests of the people are also more closely related simply on the principle of geographic proximity. Imagine if all the countries in Europe were one and they had to pass laws that everyone would follow with every party in Europe represented. Just crazy.

I think Christian belief goes hand in hand with socialism. The only thing that alienates them from the democratic party is its support for gays and abortion and all that social upheaval and revolution they came up with in the '60s. I think that they stain the Republican party, and continually corrode its ideals.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

In what sense? Why would being financially conservative mean you would be against abortion?
If it is not an economic issue then why do you feel people's political view can be expressed solely in terms of their view on economics?
I don't see how the size of the country affects whether a Parliament of 4, 6, 8 or 10 parties is governable or not?
I agree that they stain anything they are part of. But they hardly seem socialist to me.

Yet it trots out people like Asmaa Abdol-Hamid who advocates the most archly regressive right wing agenda on the face of the earth -- an agenda so conservative it seeks to conserve the normative moral values of a 1500 year old tribe representing the very antithesis of liberalism.