Posted on 08/12/2002 5:48:59 AM PDT by sauropod
From what I've seen northern Republicans tend to be more liberal in some of their stances, especially in the social platform. I work with many people from the north and some from here in NC as well and it's plain to see the two arms look at things very differently. Take for example Elizabeth Dole (I keep using it because it is the most evident, sorry). She is pro-choice, pro-tariff, and anti-gun. Bowles is the same way. Now she will get plenty of support from the unions here in NC, but unions themselves have only been in the South for about 80 years. As for the pro-choice and anti-gun issues those are most definitely not from this region. But she will get elected by the 'country club' Republicans in this state and those that are willing to vote for the lesser of two evils. As I've said before I will not anymore but there you go
Isolationist? Depends on what you mean by that. I am an isolationist in that I feel we are in too many 'defense' treaties but I fear that die was cast as far back as the trade wars in the mid to late 19th century so there's much that can be done about that. Protectionist? This is where I steer away and any Southerner worth their salt would as well. The Confederacy herself was set up on the issue of free trade. While that was never fully realized because of the ensuing four year war, it was the intent. But protectionism is another northern trait.
That's just my two cents, flame me if you will but it is from observation and seeing how the political battleground has changed in this state just during my lifetime
The palo-left has the same debate, the liberal base in this country are angry at the "new Democrats" and the "Third Way" politics. They think they have been sold out and want Paul Wellstone or Ralph Nader to be president - everybody else knows it will never happen.
LOL!
Although today, an awful lot of folks think they are synonymous, which is where you fall down on your analysis.
If someone doesn't bathe and stinks, and Society ostracises him for it, then that is a societal/cultural action. If the same person becomes a true health hazard to the point where he carries infectious diseases, etc. then gubbermint steps in.
As G.W. once said, Government is organized force. Society is not (or should be not). I oppose the use of organized force to run my affairs in almost all instances. Whereas I might hold my nose and run away from the great unwashed example of this post.
Clear enough? 'Pod
Answer to 2nd question. I am against society "organizing its force" and imposing its will on people practicing such in the privacy of their own bedroom.
But i am also against forced acceptance of certain folks that insist that their lifestyle be accepted uncritically by all, to the point that state certifications such as marriage licenses be issued.
'Pod
That's interesting Jihad Johnny Shear. So all the "old conservative are old racist" huh?
Why am I not surprised by this statement of yours, after dealing with you on the other thread? I knew I had your ID...
Of equal importance are the ways in which state power has encouraged a breakdown in families and morality. So much of how we live now is a function of programs like welfare and social security. I'm not sure that we can or ought to go back to what existed before, but here too, a wise child will see that what we have now isn't entirely a product of capitalism or freedom.
The idea of a restoration is one that's had great appeal for a long time. It's said Britain was able to go from the irreligious, debauched world of the 18th century to the respectable, moralizing evangelical Victorian atmosphere of the mid-19th century. If I'm not mistaken, during the same years Americans went from the most alcoholic people in the world to the biggest teatotaler in the Western world.
Of course these are generalizations and there are plenty of glaring exceptions, but this model entices some conservatives and conservative libertarians now as it entranced all parties a century ago. The difference is that in those days, it was presumed that more state action, more social workers, more settlement houses and more support payments would make people more moral. Today the presumption is that less state action will achieve the same result. There's reason to be sceptical in both cases, but the example still has an appeal to intellectuals and policy makers.
I think you're right that conservatives like certain freedoms more than others. Who wouldn't find the right to free speech or the free market preferable to the right to make snuff films? And it's true across the political spectrum. Liberals clearly value the right to abortion above the economic freedoms. And libertarians are the most intriguing case. The demand for less government conflicts with legally established "rights" such as freedom from racial discrimination. The libertarian claim to be the party of freedom would be sharply disputed by those who have more reliance or faith in "rights" or "freedoms" created by statute. Given that all rights rest on the means of enforcement, which are generally in the hands of the government, there is something to be said for argument.
I think you tend to associate social conservatism with incursions into individual freedoms. I come at this more from the point of view of a Reagan voter who simply wanted more local control and fewer federal interventionist actions on behalf of actions or policies that people regarded as immoral. And my take is that those socially conservative Reagan voters were more truly "conservative" than their libertarian or free marketeering colleagues. For better or for worse, it was the free marketeers who changed the world in new and unforseen ways. It's also the case that "social conservative" is an ambiguous term. I don't mean the activists of the Moral Majority, but ordinary people, the traditionalist "Reagan Democrats," for want of a better term, who weren't looking for a restoration, but just to hold the line against pernicious trends. If that socially conservative ground has been lost, the country is in real trouble.
I suppose that "Restoration" is an impossible dream and paleoconservatism is a pipe dream, but I still think that small town Americans who maintain older social values are not only the salt of the earth, but also the mainstream of American conservatism. Maybe others will come around to their views. Or maybe their position will be increasingly untenable, but it won't necessarily be because they represent more statism. More likely it would be because more people don't want to put up with restrictions which may be private or non-governmental as well as state-imposed.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(LIMITED non pc-intrusive govt)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---
Regards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.