Replies

On a whole, I consider myself a liberal....I can hear the hisses already....Im not sure exactly what it means to be a republician or democrate but I support goverment intervention for the needy (thus raising taxes) which I beileve was the classic definition between the parties.

I am also a strong beilever in god, in liberity and in freedom.

I don't understand the seperation between our parties, I honestly don't. I don't think republician's want death (I support a "just" war though), wants people to go hungry, wants intolerance (I think any true beilever in god would be againist this).

I can tell you for sure no liberals want these things. Yet somehow our parties always end up fighting. Why?

We always end up fighting each other instead of for the good causes and no one can deny there is so many horrible things happening in this world.

Your motto above says "Defending the Constitution", but thats we feel like we are doing!

Please don't blow me off as being stupid, or self serving, or hatefilled or anything else you view liberals as. Please take the time to explain and not just spread more hate.

Sincerely, Justin

Justin, First off, remember that the term "liberal" was invented long after the classical age of liberalism was born in the 17th and 18th century. It was born amongst the Whig Party of Britain and only emulated and imitated by the Enlightenment Phiosophes of France.

The Old Whigs were not Tories in the sense of defending the King at all costs, but instead fought court corruption and defended private property and liberty. The defining old Whig was Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, again a term that didn't exist in his time.

I suggest you forget terms and approach history. Read about what distinguishes the different traditions of liberty.

Once you know history you may decide that Big Government and General Will weren't the answer for Revolutionary France then and aren't the answer or substitute for our Federal system today.

You will also learn that group rights aren't a substitute for real individual rights and that if government grants it to your group, it can surely remove it.

The best answer to your question has little to do with taxes and the needy, but more to do with government power and understanding that if you believe in an Enduring Moral Order rather than the opinion of fashion and situational ethics, you probably are actually a conservative, Party aside.

Charity isn't owned by either Party or any political camp.

At the risk of getting zotted myself, I'll put in my $.02.

Somewhere in between the liberal and conservative camps lies the land of the moderates. (Maybe right of center?)

Some of us believe the government should provide a safety net for the poor & needy -- but not enable the socially irresponsible or dysfunctional. Not all of us believe abortion should be totally outlawed -- rather, restricted to certain cases where the mother's life is in danger. The issue isn't whether or not the fetus is a life -- it is -- but when does the mother's welfare come first. Generally, though, I find that conservatives understand the value of life.

I could go on and on here. The bottom line is, to look at the REAL issue, and take it from there. For example: it's not, should we spend money on government programs. Rather, do government programs work? Or which ones? Is any good coming out of these programs? Or are we just throwing good money after bad? Even a privately funded charity would undergo this kind of scrutiny. Basically, the issue here is
personal versus public responsibility.

Not everything is black & white. While some issues are morally based (i.e. homosexuality), others do have room for debate & compromise. Believe it or not, being religiously educated, and having religious leaders to look up to, helps me make more informed choices, rather than just following my own, often distorted, thinking.

Most, if not all liberals, seem to be highly secular. I was once one of them. Looking back, I realize how confused I was.