This is a thread for people who have changed their political orientations substantially during their lives. For example, for people who now consider themselves conservatives, but who once were liberals. Or for liberals, who began as conservatives.

My question for you is: what, in your opinion, made you change?

Some particular experience? (There is an old saying, that a conservative is a liberal who was mugged. On the other side, I have a friend who was the national chairman of his country’s Young Conservatives, but who became involved in anti-apartheid activities, and was radicalized by that.)

Some change in your life situation? (Another old saying is that a conservative is a liberal with a mortgage. Or with a daughter in high school.)

Or some extended exposure to a different way of thinking? (Many young people who come from conservative homes become liberals after attending college.)

Or something else?

So … if you switched, why did you do it?

between Bakunin, Bokonon and Buchanan (less frequently), understanding always that the state is a shared illusion which we all (well, most) choose (or are compelled) to construct and maintain. But where would we be without them, bless 'em.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Nawbut.. I must say I appreciate your rationality, exactitude and succinct prose.. Also, your wit dry and formidable.


You stated, ".. that the state is a shared illusion which.. most choose.."

I beg your pardon.. Although generally I would agree with you understanding that most have no idea about what you are referring, I would say most are compelled to accept the state..

Until each and every acquiesce to the burden of full personal responsibility and moral culpability, we will always be subject to the state..

__________________
"Where there is no God, all is permitted." - Fyodor Dostoyevski

The answer is easy and is explained by a popular Conservative of the day, Michael Savage, in the title of his new book, "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Stop smoking bong hits in front of the tube..

Stop relying on all the 'mainstream' news orgs like.. what.. 60% of the country has now..

Tune in to Limbaugh, Medved, Ingraham, Hewitt et al.. Even the afore mentioned Savage.

And for crying out loud stop just pretending to be religious.

__________________
"Where there is no God, all is permitted." - Fyodor Dostoyevski

I used to listen to Savage, et al until I got a lesson in reality and realized that they're insane.

At the same time, I've never liked social programs, political correctness, and big government so I've stayed away from the Dems.

The modern Republicans are the worst of both worlds now: they not only expand government like LBJ on a crack binge, but also want to force their social beliefs on everyone. Controlling your life and your pocketbook...

But since the Dems and Republicans are pretty much interchangeable (they're all talk...their actual methods of government don't differ as much as they want us to believe) I've become a libertarian to escape the insanity. I figure that with a small, transparent government I wont have to worry.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

There is nothing insane about Medved, Hewitt et al.. Savage may be considered to be a little extreme, but certainly not insane.. And who other than the afore mentioned could have possibly given you a lesson in reality? I hope it wasn't Franken, Garafolo, or Moore.

At least they are expanding the Federal Government in areas appropriate.. IE National Defense.. The Medicaid thing is appalling.. Appeasing a drug addicted, ingest anything for pleasure generation...

Hardly controlling your pocketbook though.. Tax cuts are some of the most generous in history.. Social Security reform, allowing you more choice.. These seem to me fairly Libertarian ideas!?

Give me an example of forcing social beliefs..

Savage would agree with you.. So why would you have stopped listening..

I can respect your libertarian ideology, but I hope your not wasting votes on insignificant third parties.

__________________
"Where there is no God, all is permitted." - Fyodor Dostoyevski

I used to be a real religious jew. But I got tired of the Orthodox Jewish worldview. ("Yeah, kill all the arabs, before they kill us! Their guilty until proven innocent!")

It seemed a little shallow for me. As did all religion, but that's just my opinion. So when I became athiest I became liberal.

Are opposite sides of the same coin. Savage has some good points, as do people like Pat Buchanan. But they're also very irrational in other areas and can't seem to debate like rational, intelligent human beings (Pat can, but not the other partisan hacks).

The Republicans in Congress are dolling out a record amount of pork and can't balance the budget to save their lives. Which is why I thought it was very ironic that they passed a more stringent bankruptcy law when they're the most fiscally irresponsible institution on the planet. I also hate how the GOP focuses on trivial issues like Terri Shiavo, gay marriage, etc. when the nation needs to address things like the national debt, China's economic/military growth, and terrorism (the practical side--not the jingoistic good guy vs. bad guy approach that the GOP uses for political gain).

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

Opposite sides of the same coin is cliche.. So what.. Which side is more reasonable to you? I don't agree with Savage on all things, but his voice is an important one.. Moore's voice in my opinion is negative, slanderous and completely anti-American.. In other words, the guy is a big fat liar.

I assume you aren't familiar with Medved who's debate style radio program allows the listener to hear both sides and discern which is the more reasonable..

Give me an example of that pork that isn't tied to national defense.. (Besides the Medicaid deal)

Also.. I am still waiting for an example of how the Republicans are forcing social beliefs.. If anyone is forcing social beliefs on anyone else, it would have to be the liberals forcing their ideology on the majority in this country through the courts.

You must be just out of diapers to consider these trivial issues.

I assure you these things are being addressed.. You just don't know about it 'cause the media isn't interested in covering anything pro administration and instead insists on fabricating scandalous military activity, admiring aberrations like Michael Jackson and apologizing for the witless runaway bride... Also, how do you expect anything to get done with the minority Senate making such As--s of themselves.

You Libs like to use that word Jingoism.. Unfortunately, the responsibility of the President and his administration is to protect the citizens of this country.. Its foolish to believe a threat does not exist.

__________________
"Where there is no God, all is permitted." - Fyodor Dostoyevski

Gay marriage is a trivial issue in comparison to China and the national debt. It's nothing more than a way to galvanize voters who can't be bothered to critically think about important issues; it doesn't take much of a brain to be against them there gays getting hitched. Why do you think Congress wasted all that time with the gay marriage amendment? They have better things to do.

And regarding pork: "Among the projects larded into the bill are $3 million for the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and $200 million for a bridge to Alaska's Gravina Island, where 50 people live. There's also a provision to spend $1.5 million on a bus stop outside the Anchorage Museum of History and Art." We have record deficits with a Republican controlled government...there's nothing fiscally conservative about that party.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion...tcol_0522.html

Terry Schiavo shouldn't have been a federal issue. A perfect example of the GOP (who are for state's rights...unless they disagree with the state I suppose) expanding federal powers to politically capitalize on an unfortunate situation. That's not the federal government's job.

And why do you consider defense pork better than other pork? Just because you throw money at something doesn't mean it'll work. 90% of government programs are an example of that. I bet we could trim $100 billion off defense spending and still be leaps and bounds over every other country militarily.

And I use the word jingoism because most Americans don't understand the complexity of global terrorism because the administration is simplifying it as a political move. I'm not questioning our need to address it; stopping terrorism is obvious here. What I'm calling for is more intelligent discourse on terrorism and why it occurs...not just driving around with "kiss your ass goodbye Osama" bumper stickers. We'd win our biggest victory against terrorism if we stopped giving Israel free billion-dollar handouts...

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"