I don't have interest in spending that much time on this.
It may suffice to say that I used to be what many of you would call a RINO because of my stance on some domestic issues. And now I am what many consider a DINO because of my stance on some fiscal and international issues.

Why would I (or anyone else) answer such a question?

If you thirty percenters haven't been convinced that Mr. Bush is completely incompetent by the events of the past six years, what would make me think you would listen to anything anyone had to say.

In other words: If reality hasn't convinced you, why would reason?

"What is so great about the Democrats?"

They are so incompetent and incorrigible and self-destructive; hence, so beatable.

Is that what you had in mind?

contrary to your assumptions - you can not support either political party. The democrats aren't that great either. Some times Matt - everyone sucks...

"The democrats aren't that great either. Some times Matt - everyone sucks..."

Although I disagree with your first line kblack, I must agree with the second....pity me..lol!!

Politicians, more often than not, believe that they're above the law and they tend to forget those they serve. I'm sure that the status lulls them into a false sense of superiority.

Come on, look at Dennis Kookspinach. Need I say more?

Glad you asked. I’m always happy to talk about my party.

Here’s the thing: what I love about the Democrats is that they are, and always have been, the party of the people. (See? You wanted some ammunition. There. You’ve got some.) They look out for the poor, the working man, the union organizer, the family threatened by a polluting factory nearby, the unemployed, the wage slaves....you know. The people.

Add to this the fact that they actually care about the Earth. All those touchy-feely things you Republicans like to deride. The rivers, the streams, the lakes, the trees, the animals. Did you know that calling us “tree-huggers” isn’t really an insult? Maybe you didn’t. Now you do. Who fights against snowmobiles in Yellowstone? We do. Who fights against drilling in arctic wilderness areas? We do. Who abhors the coal companies practice of lopping off the tops of mountains, clogging the rivers with mineral waste and leaving a barren landscape where once there was beauty? We do. Who helped to make global warming, easily one of the most important issues of the next half-century, a front-and-center issue? We did.

The Democrats do everything they can to protect free speech, a free press, a woman’s right to choose, they work to preserve our pristine wilderness, raise the minimum wage on a regular basis, they fighting for the right for workers to organize, battling polluters, corrupt industries and heartless lobbyists. They work for a more transparent government, less obfuscating rules regarding the buying and selling of our leaders.

Plus, they realize the importance of sacrifice in the name of national security. Our ports are still porous; the Democrats want to seal ‘em up tight. Our chemical plants are unprotected; the Democrats want them to be secure. Gun violence is rampant; the Democrats want sensible gun legislation that keeps handguns out of our cities while still allowing hunters to do their hunting thing. And more than anything, they work for a strong military, ready to deploy at a moment’s notice, should our country NEED them to deploy. (I could add an editorial comment here, but you said to keep it positive, right?)

Geez, I could go on all day.

Not to say we don’t have our share of cheaters, crooks and liars. We have a few of them, too. Every political system in the world does. But when it comes to my core beliefs, it all comes down to one thing:

I’m a proud Democrat. And I have good reason to be.

Okay, now have your fun...

I support the Democrats for several reasons:

a. Foreign policy: America leads with its military and diplomatic power. They recognize that international prestige (through soft power) is just as important as military might in the area of foreign affairs. They show a fundamental respect for international institutions and international cooperation, with America at the front and center.

b. Economic policy: They best draw the balance between unfettered capitalism and state-run economies. They believe in progressive taxation because of the declining marginal utility of the dollar, and that balanced budgets lead to lower interest rates and a more robust economy.

c. Social policy: The Democrats, now that they've largely abandoned gun control, are the party of civil libertarians. They recognize that the First Amendment contains both an Establishment Clause as well as a Free Exercise Clause. They acknowledge substantive due process, and believe that government does not belong in the bedroom and regulate people's personal lives. They believe that Mark Noonan's concept of morality is no more valid than anyone else's.

The Dems are not perfect and it's difficult to encapsulate the party into several paragraphs. They pander and are dependent too heavily on money. But until we get rid of the electoral college and abolish the two-party system that it perpetuates, I am still proud to call myself a Democrat.

Gar Wood

i'd rather come here and pitch for a seasoned debate rather than preach to a choir. that said, i'm as solid an indie as you get. i'm anti-union, anti-farm subsidies, pro-environment, fiscally conservative (from the standpoint of reducing the bloat in government AND running a balanced budget). i cannot STAND social conservatives who try to tell others how they should morally lead their lives - those people are the most despicable in my book. i'm pretty much a free-marketeer. did i mention i'm anti-union? i believe in gun control and abortion, the separation of church and state, and the right to free speech. i'm also a huge believer in diplomacy and not big on nation-building (meddling in other countries affairs - unless it pertains to human crises like darfur).

so, what party can deliver me the above?

I'd like to echo Conscriptor's point that I am a Democrat because they generally align with my views. A huge problem on both sides (but what I see commonly on this site with Republicans) is the emotional investment in the success of a political party. Our political identity should be based on our individual convictions about the issues, and not simply our alliance with a particular party. Otherwise we cede the accountability that democracy depends on to the whims of a political party.

Gar Wood

As an outsider looking in, I support no political party, although I would be delighted if you had a leader in the caliber of Russ Feingold, a true statesman, worthy of the title 'leader of the free world'. His integrity transcends party affiliation and would bring back the credibility your country has lost under this current administration.

The Republican party has been brought to a new low by those who represent them and probably will not recover until they find their moral compass and attract individuals to the party who can once again restore honesty and sound principles.

Before I begin, I must say that this is only the 2nd time I have posted here on this blob. In my first posting, I asked why some converstions were deleted and yet others allowed to remain using the same or worse verbage. It seems that the expression of ideas that are counter to the presumtions of the editors are more subject to deletion, but this does not make them go away. It only prevents them from being said here.

I do not identify in total with either political party. Each has some good positions and some much more selfish. I think that human nature and its natural gravitation to control and to manipulate has, with no counter measures to balance, been allowed to express its worst tendencies politically in the Republican party over the past 15 years or so. I find this sad because the very things that Republicans or more conservative folks used to stand for have instead been replaced by loyalty to a man: not to social and political ideology. The party of Lincoln has been replaced by a mind set that is the opposite of smaller government, fiscal responsibilty and no preemptive warring. The freedom and liberties that are afforded to American citizens by the document called the Constitution are under assault by a man, and hence extended to his party that instead of being outraged are in fact complicit. The idea that the Republicans have that in order to protect our liberties that they must be taken away is insulting to the intellegence of many millions of Americans and thus you can see this anger expressed in poll numbers and the results of the last election. Another aspect of the Republican party that I find distasteful is the affilation of a type of Calvinistic Christanity that has been exploited. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion and for those that say that this is a "christian" nation are not only misinformed, but fail to look back at history to see what damage has occured because of a belief in a deity that allows no other consideration. Look at the Islamists that instill so much ire here. I think the country gave the Republicans a real chance back in 2000 but they proved to be untrustworthy and tried to protect their corruption by an attempt to have a one party government. I also think that they are much more cynical about people than liberals. Take global climate change as just one example.
Not that I care much for democrats either, but on social issues and the adventure in Iraq, they clearly are more representative of the mood of the nation as it stands today.
History and societies are progressive. Some times progress, like evolution, happens in spurts.
Thank you for your time.

I like being a leftist because I really dont like to take responsibliy for anything, including my own behavior. I also like the fact that if I get somebody knocked up that I can erase all responsibility by getting an abortion, I have dodged many bullets by this simple procedure. Im also very proud that I take a soft line when it comes to our national security, we certainly dont need to fight for others freedoms because its really none of our business that those extreme islamofacist want all of us dead. I believe that all people have the right to get married including all gays, heck I believe that you should be able to wed sheep if thats what floats your boat. I dont like it when people tell me I should live my life, I have my own moral code and if I want to partake in lude disgusting behavior its nobodys business but mine. Wow! I could go on for days but I have to go to an anti war march because I dont want to win the war in Iraq because that will assure us victory in the WH in 08. HA HA HA

Hah! "Lude disgusting behavior"! How wonderfully(and unintentionally) hilarious!

Man, some of these posts made me think I was reading something from Lennin.

So BabbaRamDass, does this mean you won't be responding to Matt's challenge?

You surely went off on Republicans, so why stop there?

Also you reference republicans numerous times, in a politically slanted way that demeans the party and paints Conservatives as warmongers that are out of control. BTW, have you noticed the DOW recently? It's at an all-time high...thank you Mr. Bush, and tax cuts.

Also noteworthy is the execution of one of the baddest a-holes on earth, and I'm not talking about Ted Kennedy. No, I'm talking about Saddam and his rapist sons.

Again noteworthy are the years without an attack on our homeland that the left refuses to acknowledge as a victory on the GWOT.

Now, as you clearly state "I do not identify in total with either political party." Excuse me!! Who might you think you're fooling here? Or is this your way of easing the pain of insult?

Mistarye...not too far from Cyberactress's game plan.

I support the Democrats because they listen to what the people want. Clearly a 60% income tax is exactly what this country demands. But that doesnt matter to me because I dont have a job, and I get a check in the mail every two weeks! How great is that? The Democrats look out for me, because I am poor. I guess I could get a job and pay high taxes, but that would be pretty stupid huh. I also think that if every rich person gave every poor person half their money, then we could all be equal. Come on guys doesnt that sound great?

Mistarye...not too far from Cyberactress's game plan.

Yeah, navydad, but Cyberactress was serious, and more consise with his talking points. I believe Mistarye's was a spoof post...

Yeah..ooopps! The sarcasm switch should have been on on mine! Next time I'll lite 'er up.

Maybe we can hear from OBL, Sheehan and Chavez. They know why! Cut and run, raise taxes and promise to take from the workers and redistribute. And CO, play by the rules! All you did was parrot the platform, that is, bash Bush, zero ideas. Thanks

I belong to the oldest established and still viable (two members on council) municipal party in the world (85 years old and counting). Our long ago established motto is "Fair, Effective and Efficient Government."
That pretty much sums up what I look for.
I think the republican party's current leadership knows very little about the conservative principles George H.W. Bush knows or even Richard Nixon knew. This crop seem more interested in Machiavellian principles.
Those old principles were more about a view of the government's role and personal and industrial responsibility than about how to solidify the evangelical vote and a 51% strategy.

Keefer it was a spoof post, any rational thinking human couldnt back the left. I was trying to put myself in their shoes and think like they do, it just dosent work for me.

Matt-

You have given me an impossible question to answer, with the given constraint. I don't vote based on party because I hate both of the parties... I always vote anti-incumbent and libertarian if I can. If the challenger happens to be a Democrat, then I vote for a Democrat. It's as simple as that. Granted, I think that Democrats are slightly less apt to restrict my freedom, and Republicans, as evidenced by this site, have mastered the fallacious art of ad hominem, and, as a bit of a logic nut, that tends to annoy me and turn me off to the party.

For me, it's not a question of who I support; it's a question of who I hate less...

Posted by: Mistarye:
"...I believe that you should be able to wed sheep if thats what floats your boat."

I, Canuckguy would have said "...you should be able to wed a 'goat' if thats what floats your boat"

Funnier. Play on words. More meaningful thing than most of the crazed delusional extreme right wing Republican rantings on this site.

For the record, I can't think of anything to say about the Democrats other than they remind me too much of our spineless, gutless, corrupt Liberals up here in Canuckistan.

navydad
Hope that switch was on last night. I never found that thread again but I was jesting about Paris Hilton.

Rana the dems wont restrict your freedoms and they will not fight for them eighter.

I hold that the government has only two responsibilities:

1.) Defend the individual liberty of its citizenry.

2.) Agressively persue those who violate those liberties, both foreign and domestic.

Neither party sticks to that... Democrats make me give to an inefficient charity (welfare) and Republicans spend my money on faith-based initiatives, oil subsidies, and pork (Democrats do love pork too... part of the reason for my dislike). Since when does the free market require government money to survive (farm subsidies and oil subsidies)...

So Rana

you would get rid of :
education, social services, utility services, energy services, health services, road services, firefighters, agriculture services...???

In a previous thread I expressed my objections to both the Bush administration and GOP policies that came to light (at least to me) during Bush's second term. Maybe it's just coincidence, or maybe that comment triggered this thread. Anyway, my original comment was directed at keefer, and it was not intended as an attack on conservatism in general, but what I felt were violations of my own personal belief system -- which, frankly, I had considered to be relatively conservative, though in a more "traditional" sense. I expected him to hammer me. But to my surprise, he accepted my offer to buy another round.

When I saw the current topic pop up I figured I'd take the opportunity to do exactly the opposite of what Matt's request was and crap on libbies, lol! Heck, it only seemed fair. And I like to think that I'm an equal opportunity pooper. I just haven't gotten much opportunity on this site -- most of the topics do a much better job at throwing poop into the fan than I ever could, lol!

I started thinking about it this morning, but real life got in the way. In the mean time the thread has grown, and have to say that I enjoyed reading the comments. Many of them were very illuminating, and some actually thoughtful. I don't mean to reply to any of those comments directly. All I mean to do is to respond to what I view as the core of liberal philosophy (what Almiranta might call the LLL, or the "looney liberal left"), and why, in a very general sense, I object to it. So here goes (I tried to keep it short, by the way, and talk mostly in generalities and impressions, not specifics)...

Ricorun's Critique of Liberal Philosophy

Compassion without accountability: It's all well and good to give a man a fish. But it is so much more practical to teach him how to fish instead. Caring for the sick and the needy is all well and good, but it should not be an end in itself. If it's an end in itself it does more to perpetuate the problem than eliminate it. For example, prior to welfare reform back in the mid-90s programs like Aid to Families With Dependent Children were essentially contructed to all but ensure that poverty was institutionalized. If dad was around, you got less money. Thus, dad was less inclined to stick around. And mom got MORE money the more kids she had. And if mom showed any incentive towards getting and holding a legitimate job, her payments decreased. That lessened the incentive there, too.

Tolerance without responsibility: If it feels good, do it. Well, I don't mind doing things that feel good. However, there should be constraints. I suppose all but the mooniest of moonbats would agree to that. But where do you draw the line? Is it just that one individual's rights ends where another's rights begins? What about the community? Doesn't the community have rights, too? Isn't the common welfare important?

Spending without restraint: If a problem exists, throw money at it. And if you don't have enough money, raise taxes. 'Nuff said about that. Like I said, I'm trying to keep it short.

Incentives without incentive: A car in every pot and a chicken in every garage, right? Okay, maybe I "Bushified" that remark, but you get what I mean -- the idea is that everyone has a right to a middle class existence. Well, they don't. Everyone should have an opportunity to a middle class existence. And it shouldn't end there. Everyone should have an opportunity to get rich, too. If you take that away, you sap incentive to achieve. Excessively burdensome progressive taxes takes that incentive away. I'm not saying that no taxes should be progressive -- unless of course no taxes are regressive, either. IMO, there has to be a balance - a balance where it continuously pays to achieve, and to contribute to the overall economy. I came from a fairly large family where (except for my dad and my granddad on my mom's side) the greatest aspiration in life seemed to be to get into a union. If you managed to do that, you were set. What a waste of talent.

Speak softly and don't even bother carrying a stick: I was listening to the wrap-up on the SC Dem "debate" last night and whatzisname, the former Senator from AK, who I had never even heard of before, advocated taking the more extreme options completely off the table, no matter what. Make war no more, I guess you could say. Well gee, that attitude pretty much ensures that either you're going to have to change that attitude eventually or be content to live under the dominion of those don't hold it. In a word (or two, depending upon whether you add a hyphen or don't) that's just total BS. To be fair, though, I have an equally extreme reaction to those that hold to the other extreme: wave a nice big stick around and don't bother even trying to talk.

No problem carsick. I have extremely thick skin.

Well stated in so few words Ricorun! I'm sure some on the left will pounce on the simplicity, but for what appears to be less than 1000 words-excellent job!

While the left tends to focus on the things that have a "feel-good" approach and an appeal to people who think that giving money to folks who have little (among other issues) is free of consequence; I remember the words of the great Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions...only trade-offs." (an example: raising minimum wage costing thousands of low-wage workers their jobs)

Cyber,

What you are for is the Democratic Party of 50 years ago - the party of the union worker has now become the party of the union boss; the party of civil liberties has now become the party of political correctness; the party of "content of character" has become the party of "color of skin"; the part of "a hand up" has become the part of "a hand out".

The Democratic party bosses of old were, oftentimes, quite venal in the way they did business. There were sweetheart deals for favored people and groups; there were kickbacks in government contracts; there were positions aplenty for political hangers-on...but most of those party bosses also died poor. They greased the skids to get things done - so, a kickback in return for actually getting the clean, running water to the poor neighborhood, eg. The party bosses of today are in it for themselves.

The details of this are, of course, contained in Caucus of Corruption - which book will be officially released on May 8th. That is the anniversary of VE day, and I thought for a moment of calling it Victory over Democrats day, but that would be shortened to VD day and while that is rather appropriate in a lot of ways, it is also quite vulgar.

It should be kept in mind that I was the very first member of my family to register as a Republican. I'm just this middle class, worker-bee guy. Sure, I've now co-written a book and hope to have success as a writer, but there is no fancy college in my background and I put in a 40 hour week for an hourly wage. Money in the bank is a transient thing (other than the 401k) and I'm heavily mortgaged...and yet here I am, a member of the Republican Party...the grandson of a man who, as far as we can tell, only cast one Republican vote in his whole life - for Ronald Reagan in 1980. You should ask yourself: why has the Democratic Party lost the votes of people like me? I used to be the backbone of the party (Catholic, Irish-descended, middle class working man).

It is because the Democrats have no place for the pro life; it is because the Democrats have no place for the pro family; it is because Democrats have no place for the ardent patriot; it is because Democrats have no place for the middle class; it is because the Democrats have become the tool of the rich, white, liberal elite of education, media and inherited money. The Democrats don't want me - indeed, Democrats insult me on a regular basis on account of my religion. So, I've no place there - and thus I'm a Republican; not because Republicans are perfect, but because they at least allow me a seat at the table.

Deleted - obscenity.

(Ed. Note: Kblack, you're much better than that. We'll put this one down to a momentary lapse of reason. Please don't let it happen again.)

Compassion without accountability: You complain about the liberal philosophy "prior to welfare reform back in the mid-90s." Your point is moot.

Tolerance without responsibility: "Doesn't the community have rights, too?" My belief, and the civil libertarian belief is, that conservatives vastly overestimate the impact of individuals' potentially naughty behavior on society at large. Interracial marriage, sodomy, and contraceptives were all prohibited by law, later declared to be constitutionally protected, and society is now much better off because of it.

"Spending without restraint:" I don't disagree with you on this. I still think it is better than the "spending without restraint, LOWER taxes" approach.

"Incentives without incentive:" I don't think the Democratic position diverges from what you said here.

Mark,

You have based your criticism not on any of the actual positions of the Democratic Party, but based solely on stereotypes and totally unfounded caricatures. The vast majority of Democrats are God-fearing, middle-class people just like you. Elites control both parties...why is this news to you?

"Democrats insult me on a regular basis on account of my religion"

What the hell are you talking about?

Gar Wood

Navy:
You seem to have alot of hostility. May I be so bold as to suggest some cognitive therapy? Let me address your unwarrented insinuations.
The Dow is not a refelction of the business accumen of the administration. The treasury borrows billions of dollars daily just to stay afloat. Perhaps a familiarization with Kensey or Milton Freedman would assist your quest for knowledge.
The topic of the post was to explain why some people identify with liberals or the Democratic Party vs conservatives and Republcans. I consider my views to be much more conservative in the historical sense of the word but since conservativism has morphed into an unquestioning allegence to an imperical America that relies upon instilling fear in the populace and is led by a small but powerful group of incompetent religious ideolouges, I expressed my opinion because I was invited to. As far as my opinion of what has become of the Republican party, Invasion of the Body Snatchers comes to mind.
Lastly, I don't think conservatives are warmongers. If you are familiar with Edmund Burke, whom many consider to be the foundation of post renaissance conserativism, disingenuous wars masked in a false sense of pride and patriotism are liberal in nature. The very word conservative means to save, to be judicious, to be aware of the future consequences of current behavior. In other words, planning for the future dispassionately.
Emotions cloud decisions; much like what you write.
I would like to see a return of conservative values in the United States but what generally calls itself conservative or Republican today is a masquerade of absolutists claiming to be something they are not and worse have a sublime contempt for the very idea of a free and open society. Look no further than the contempt you have expressed towards me or the number of deleted posters on this blog. Liberalism is nothing without conservative tenents. Liberalism is the foundation of western culture and society, regardless of how much it is ralied against.
After your therapy, perhaps you should investigate expanding your mind.

"What is so great about the Democrats?"

Entertainment value!

I was trying to put myself in their shoes and think like they do, it just dosent work for me.

Not without a lobotomy, it won't...

poor poor Mark - a middle class white Christian male who is SO discriminated against by those damn democrats...
Give me a break. NOBODY F***ING CARES ABOUT YOU

What the hell was this rant about, Dr. Rerun? You have no right to slam Mark this way, not with your diminished mental capacity. And how's about you leave out the F-bombs, you absolute waste of oxygen. You deserved to be banned, and few would miss you if you were. Asshat...

let me get this straight - your concerned about me using the "f-bomb" but your fine with calling me Asshat every post..

Get over yourself. And I have every right to slam Mark - if he doesn't like it don't keep such a public blog..

Well, I don't have time to defend my philosophy, here today, but I will tell you, with words from above, why this liberal stops by here from time to time.

I was going to say "entertainment value," but that's not it. It's more the intellectual traffic accident that you can't look away from.

Let us see what our choices are. For the last six years we have had a doom and gloom Armageddon view of the world droned into us by the Republican Party and its corporate media machine. A Republican party whose members take and take and take with giving little back while claiming they and they alone have the keys to heaven vs a Democratic party with a platform that sees the best in our nation and ask how we as citizens can make it better to make the lives of all our people more fulfilled. I choose the latter

And I have every right to slam Mark - if he doesn't like it don't keep such a public blog..

Or he could ban your sorry ass, like he did to your boyfriend Whispa...

"Democrats insult me on a regular basis on account of my religion"

What the hell are you talking about?

He means that people slam him for his wingnutty (and highly inconsistent) interpretations of religion. It's just that he doesn't tend to think too much, and it's much easier for him to pretend that he's being slammed for being a Christian than to realize that it's actually his hardheaded extremism and massive inconsistencies that are the problem. As has already been pointed out, Democrats have no problem with your typical churchgoing Christian; it's the radical wingnuts who are the problem.

Gee BabbaRamDass, please tell all usun unedumacted hicks about whigs n Edmund Burke cause yu nos usun ain't got nos edumaction heres.

Golli, please tells usun bout dat stok marcet and the business accumen (sic) that weez jus kant wates ta heres bout.

Elitist snob.

After coming home from a night out with my beautiful wife in our small hick town and reading Babbadumbasses post, I felt like flushing every one of my achievements. I feel so small. Sarcasm off.

Navy:
Sorry you feel so put upon. And defensive. Elitist?
That is your karma, not mine. It is not my intention to intimidate anyone. Perhaps if you could see beyond the shallow narrative that describes what you so feverently need to believe in your life might take on some depth. And tolerance. And compassion.
But I guess that you are just a crumungend old man who is miserable being awake.
In your case, please don't share. No one else wants to be infected.

ban away, ban away -- only shows you can't take the fire...

(Ed. Note: we'll give you two momentary lapses of reason before we'll do that. This is number two.)

Sees,

Actually, Democrats have no problem with a person who might go to church, but who doesn't take Christianity too seriously...you know, the sort of people who are "personally opposed", but won't actually do anything to stop certain things that liberals think are good but Christians think are evil.

as to the momentary laps of reason - fair enough - but I would hope that you would keep your friends to the same standard - keefer has called me "Asshat" for several months now...

Here is what I love about democrats... their class act, 24/7
"let me get this straight - your concerned about me using the "f-bomb" but your fine with calling me Asshat every post..

Get over yourself. And I have every right to slam Mark - if he doesn't like it don't keep such a public blog..

Posted by: kblack77 at April 27, 2007 09:41 PM"

What's really cool about the liberal left Democrats is how they would rather put foot cleaning devices in school bathrooms for female muslims, while protecting our kids from Easter Egg hunts, the Pledge of Allegance and Santa Clause.

as to the momentary laps of reason - fair enough - but I would hope that you would keep your friends to the same standard - keefer has called me "Asshat" for several months now...

But, Dr. Rerun, that's because you are! I can't help myself; I call 'em as I see 'em. Quit whining, son. Get over yourself. Arsehat...

Gar Wood: Compassion without accountability: You complain about the liberal philosophy "prior to welfare reform back in the mid-90s." Your point is moot.

On this and all my other points, I was speaking to what I perceive to be "liberal philosophy". And I don't think any of them are moot. It would, however, be wrong to equate that philosophy with any specific Democratic party platform or any individual policy suggestions offered up at any given point in time. But I think it is appropriate to suggest that the liberal philosophy of which I speak is an influence that the Democratic party as a whole has to accommodate -- more at some times than others.

As you may recall, welfare reform was strongly resisted by the more liberal elements on the political spectrum. Many liberals thought Clinton was selling his soul to the devil by eventually agreeing to it. Whatever else you could say, liberals were certainly not in favor of it.

A more current battleground is affirmative action policies. My understanding is that liberals in general have no problem with maintaining a policy that is based purely on racial and ethnic quotas. In the name of "diversity", they adamantly resist any attempt at change. That is even though it means some kid from wealthy black parents or Hispanic parents or Chinese parents or whatever, gets picked above some poor kid of whatever background who really needs help. And that, I would argue, represents a misplaced priority.

The whole idea behind affirmative action was that discrimination against minorities resulted in economic and demographic inequalities. Those inequalities were what affirmative action policies were supposed to correct, right? If they didn't exist, it wouldn't be an issue, right? I'm not against affirmative action policies per se, but it seems to me that they should target the economic and demographic inequalities directly, not focus on the racial or ethnic component which may or may not be relevant in any individual case. To the extent that you exclusively focus on race or ethnicity you run into situations where one kid has an advantage over another simply because they are "of color", even though they do not come from an economically or demographically disadvantaged background. That tends to piss people off. Thus, I suspect, it serves to perpetuate the divisions along racial/ethnic lines rather than ameliorate them.

As with the above, I could argue each of your other points on the basis of "misplaced priorities". And (unlike Mark) I don't mean to imply that what I perceive as central to "liberal philosopy" has not, and could never be, a positive force in society. I definitely think it has. But not if totally left to its own devices. For example, I have no problem with the concept of interracial marriage, or even gay "marriage" -- or civil unions, or whatever you want to call them. I believe the concepts of love, commitment, respect, responsibility and accountability contribute much more to a stable society than any additional (and I would argue superfluous) requirement based on race, ethnicity, creed, or gender. It is the concept of "anything goes" that I have a problem with -- of behavior without consequences. That defines anarchy. And that concept, IMO, is not just restricted to interpersonal relations, either. It is a very broad concept in my mind. For example, when applied to politics or business it is even more corrosive to society. It's all about greed and -- more generally -- selfishness. But I suppose that's another rant.

Ricorun,

I don't think I'd put it that what is liberal is inherentlhy bad - I put it more in terms of that which is liberal is eventually going to go bad because it is based upon the false premise that mankind is inherently good and thus is we just fix the system, we'll fix man. The proper formulation is that mankind is inherently bad and only by changing men can we fix the system...and, of course, we are very limited in our ability to change men, so its best to stick with what has been proved to work rather than try innovation merely for the sake of trying something new.

What is inherently evil is that bastard outgrowth of liberalism, political leftism: that species of thought which can by traced back to Karl Marx (certainly one of the most baleful philosophers to ever set pen to paper). Political leftism is inherently evil because it is based upon not just a mistake (liberalism's failure), but upon the false notions of no God and a society deliberately created by the powers that be for the suppression of the masses.

Mr. Noonan:
I am really shocked that you know so little about the history of liberalism. I am more dismayed that you have such a negative view of human nature.
Allow me to give you a primer.
Modern liberalism grew out of the age of enlightenment marked by the Napoleanic Wars.
Liberalism promotes individual liberty, individual rights, the rule of law, a free market economy, free enterprise and a transparent government, just to name a few highlights.
I must ask you, are you sure you are an American? Because what you are suggesting is totalitarian.

"If you get under the skin of the opposition so much that they spend much of their time on your blog, then you're obviously doing something right."

Yes, if your goal is to piss off the opposition by being stupid and ornery. Pretty lame goal, I think. Why don't you spend your time trying to get Republicans in office, or educate people using facts? You might actually have some readership if you didn't expend so much energy "getting under the skin of your enemies."

I think it's a shame how we've fallen for what appears to be an attempt, by both parties, to convince us that we're all too stupid to care.

I'm a libertarian; I'm also a left-leaning moderate. I don't have a home in either party, and I suspect that when if most of you would think about it -- if you consider the failings of your own party as well as the opposition -- you'd agree.

The biggest meta-issue facing America is that our political system is designed to be one-dimensional in a two-dimensional model. We measure politics on one horizontal scale, liberal on the left and conservative on the right. I'm just shy of halfway to the left -- I'm a left-leaning moderate.

But in other nations around the world, and in the minds of political philosophers, there's also a second axis -- a vertical scale, authoritarianism at the top and anarchism on the bottom. I'm about halfway between zero and anarchism, which makes me a solid libertarian.

There aren't a whole lot of authoritarians in America. That's because our nation is founded upon principles (freedom of speech; of press; of religion; of personal choice; of capital) which are expressly anti-authoritarian.

In fact, can I add a philosophical question to this thread? Is anyone here an authoritarian in the truest sense? True authoritarians would seek to impose what we'd call a "police state," in which the personal lives of citizens are influenced and 'moderated' by the government. Whether it's religious authoritarianism (like Shari'a Islamic law) or socialist authoritarianism (communist, Internet-censoring China), we can pretty much all agree that the philosophy is revolting on its face.

That's where we've lost our way, in my opinion. Since we reject authoritarianism outright, we simply assume that its influence wouldn't creep into our own government -- the Constitution protects against this, doesn't it? -- yet authoritarians are now firmly ensconsed in the highest positions in our nation's leadership.

So, then, why don't the pundits, the talking heads, or even our own politicians talk about the vertical axis? Because most of them are just like us -- they don't think it's possible for it to happen here.

Here's where many of you will disagree with me as a reflex -- but I challenge you to be completely objective: today's GOP has been infiltrated by authoritarians to an unprecedented degree. There is a similar influence in the Democratic party, but liberals -- by nature, and when seen as underdogs and alarmists -- harbor more of an innate rejection of authoritarianism.

That's why this moderate libertarian will vote for Democrats in 2008, and why I voted with Democrats in 2006. Until the GOP can resist the influence of theocracy and reject the idea of using the military to create vassal-states abroad, I'm content to be true blue.

But until we begin discussing the influence of the vertical axis on our national politics -- across party lines -- I will fear for the future of our Republic and fight fiercely, alongside anyone, on the right or on the left, against the creep upwards.

Well..well, it appears Mr. Elitist BabbaRamDumbass obtains major quantities of worthless information from Wikipedia. Or are we to assume that you simply escaped from the mental institution with a complete set of encyclopedias?

Either way, it doesn't matter since the only relevant form of liberalism is "present" form which is obviously rooted within the fiber of your worthless soul.

Might I suggest lovee (Thirston Howell III), a lesson in humility? It may clear that fog of arrogance from your pea brain.

I think you have hogged all the arrogance Navydad. There is none left for the rest of us. And there you go with that elitist jab. I prefer to think of it as better read, more informed and more evolved. You portray yourself as a classic knuckle-dragger. Easily out witted I might add. Figure that one out, Einstein.

Whooaaa Mr. Elitist, don't get mad!

But it's kinda strange that someone of your caliber (snicker) can be so vexed by a "knuckle-dragger."

Ya know, over at the Daily Hogs-where you belong-is a type of arrogance you may relate to. It smells of liberal college professors et al. that couldn't make it in the private sector, thus resorting to the system for eternal support....similar to your socialist views in a way. But a place you'll most likely find like philosophies and comfort.

navydad
The neat thing about being well informed is that anyone can achieve it in America. We have open libraries in this country and access to an unedited (so far) internet among other options allowed by a free press and free enterprise and philanthropy. It is not elitist to have knowledge if you consider the traditional meaning of that word. People can justify any number of reasons to be uninformed but that does not make the more informed elitist.

Babba,

I'm quite aware of where liberalism first arose - in that period which liberals called the "enlightenment" which was really nothing more than a bunch of philosophical cobweb spinning by upper middle class twits who had to neither work for a living no be responsible for the government of States.

Your liberalism was just a means whereby the rich could grind the poor and the libertine could freely give vent to his depravity - and the bastard outgrowths of liberalism (communism/fascism/Nazism) were a reaction by some liberals who stepped back disgusted at what liberalism had wrought, but lacked the wit to go back and read Burke.

There is one way to properly govern men and States - and that is by rigid adherence to Judeo-Christian moral precepts.

You are a scary guy Mark Noonan. Does human nature terrorize you so much that you think populations have to be rigidly controled? And by whom? And who controls the controlers?
Since you have such a dour, cynical view of humanity surely you must agree that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Although not guided by Judeo-Christian "morality" you sound like you would be very comfortable with The Taliban or any other theocracy that places a religion in the highest position of social and political authority. Just like in every country and civilzation before the age of enlightenment and the subsequent birth of the idea of individual rights. The apple in Garden of Eden is an analogy and it is painfully obvious that free will terrifies you to the point of madness. Not anger per se, but outright psychopathology.
Before you shoot your mouth off about how knowledgeable you invision yourself, perhaps you should re-read Burke. Liberalism came about from the poor of France. As a construct, it was not in the best interests of the wealthy land owners to have the prolitariate have an equal say in how they were governed. Hence the nature of the French revolution.
Not to be too picayune, but communisim (community, the communal, sharing,etc) is a radical incarnation of liberal philosophy I agree. Fascism and Nazis are conservative. As are authoritarians, such as yourself.
I think the readers here would appreciate some intellectual honesty on your part. I would find you to be more agreeable if you were to come right out and say that your absolute derangement in the belief of a Jesus Christ to be the only way to a cosmic human salvation might play very well.
Sort of like having a gay family member come out of the closet, so to speak. That way, we can all discuss things here with much more freedom and honesty without the fear of deletion. You're crazy, we're not, so lets debate in a good hearted way! (Joke intended.)
As I have said, I have been a casual observer of your blog and only have posted in the past few days. But I don't understand why I have been so immediately attacked by this Navydad person but I guess he has a short fuse because of his vocabulary limitations.
As a graduate of an "elite" medical school, perhaps some day I will operate on Navydad and ask him, (before we apply the vercet and demerol) which would he prefer: Harvard,Jiffy Docs or Physcians 'R' Us? A medical certificate in 30 minutes or your money back. And your 1st malpractice suit is covered free!!
And if you want to insure survival, just pray....

I suppose I should clear up what I mean by "liberal philosophy". I mean it in a modern-day sense: that which I believe contstitute the core values of those considered liberals in this country in the present epoch. It is certainly an outgrowth of, but is distinguishable from that which, for purposes of discussion, I will call the "philosophy of liberalism". Then again, so is modern-day "conservative philosophy" an outgrowth of the "philosophy of liberalism".

The "philosophy of liberalism" arose as a body of thought during the Age of Enlightenment -- although perhaps the first expression of one of its core values -- inalienable rights -- was embodied earlier in the Magna Carta. Likewise, I further argue that it was the Protestant Reformation, and the advent of the concept of "freedom of worship", that really got the ball rolling. Along with inalienable rights and freedom of worship, this philosophy includes the notion of individual equality of opportunity (i.e., a rejection of a rigid generational class system), rule by consent, and the ability to pursue economic prosperity. The essence of the philosophy, I would argue, is to resist subjugation, especially when that subjugation is perceived to be arbitrary.

I presume (or at least I would hope) that everyone agrees with the basic precepts of the "philosophy of liberalism". Disagreements only arise with how they should be interpreted as policy.

I think PostHaste made a very good, very important point about the authoritarianism/anarchism dimension, and I do believe it is largely independent of what we refer to as "liberals" on the one hand and "conservatives" on another. Mark seems to assume that all liberals are also "libertines". But they are not the same. "Libertines" are anarchists, and thus should be placed on the authoritarianism/anarchism dimension. But not all liberals are anarchists. Socialists, and especially communists, for example, are not anarchists. Likewise, not all "conservatives" are authoritarian. For example, Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame is a pretty good example of a "conservative" anarchist.

I think PosteHaste is also right when he says, "But until we begin discussing the influence of the vertical axis on our national politics -- across party lines -- I will fear for the future of our Republic and fight fiercely, alongside anyone, on the right or on the left, against the creep upwards."

Finally (and this may be getting a little too far afield, but...), I think it is also true that what is labeled as "liberal" versus "conservative", and construed as a single dimension, is also multi-dimensional. For example, you can be a social conservative and an economic liberal (or vice versa) at the same. Similarly, religious vs. atheist is another independent dimension. I've known very devout people, some of whom are very "liberal" while others are very "conservative". Likewise, I've known "liberal" atheists as well as "conservative" atheists. Real life is very multi-dimensional.

Yet again another fine example of elitism BabbaRamDumbass.

Attacking those that supposedly don't match up with your superior vocabulary is pathetic to say the least, and you wonder why I accuse you of being an elitist?

"I think the readers here would appreciate some intellectual honesty on your part."

It is statements such as this--hey..look at me I'm educated so you need to listen--that clearly define a person's motivation to subdue the opposition opinion with prolonged bloviations of their prowess and their so-called "elite" medical school edumaction...right Mr. Elitist and I discovered u-238...lol!

"But I don't understand why I have been so immediately attacked by this Navydad person but I guess he has a short fuse because of his vocabulary limitations.

You're joking here...right? Is this how you measure greatness...by vocabulary?

ROFLMAO!!!

Obvioulsy words intimidate you Navydad. We think in words and we express ideas in words. Words are symbols. Words are metaphors. I am sorry that you are so bound by such limited economy of words.
I am not interested in measuring greatness nor do I consider intellegence or a lack thereof when evaluating a person. Honesty and integrity are more important. I am courious though, as to your mental stability. You seem to project.
Oh, congradulations on the Uranium. Now run off and make a bomb with your Junior G Man chemistry set.
Don't get burned!

Wow BabbaRamDumbass!

Obviously lovee, you're suffering from dillusions of adequacy.

Intimidation...eh?

If honesty and integity are important features when evaluating a person, then why make statements like: "I think the readers here would appreciate some intellectual honesty on your part(attacking Mark). I would find you to be more agreeable ( agreeable with my elitist opinion)if you were to come right out and say that your absolute derangement (again accusing Mark of a disorder) in the belief of a Jesus Christ to be the only way to a cosmic human salvation (must be an Athiest that believe in accidental perfection) might play very well (your opinion that you're trying to impose).

This is honesty and integrity!

"Oh, congradulations [sic] on the Uranium. Now run off and make a bomb with your Junior G Man chemistry set.
Don't get burned!"

Ya really got me there lovee!! Isn't it wonderfull to think that all those dollars your mum & dadda spent on your edumacation brought you down to this level. While you feel threatened and attacked, I on the other hand, enjoy jousting and jabbing, even with elitist morons such as yourself.

BTW Mr. Elitist, nukes were my game (non-degreed)for over thirteen years....without spending the $100K you're still re-paying to Sallie-mae. Or are mum & dadda paying the tab?

Looks like the joke is on you...a-hole!!

Comedy Central needs you!
Sallie Mae?? WTF? My parents are dead. I was raised in an orphanage and put myself through school.

Mark gets it 100% right with his comment:

"There is one way to properly govern men and States - and that is by rigid adherence to Judeo-Christian moral precepts."

In one sentence he perfectly encapsulates the essence of why the secular left hates conservatives. Conservatism is fundamentally about conserving our Judeo-Christian society-preserving it for future generations. Secular humanists-materialists (whatever one chooses to describe the Socialist Left in America) loaths the very idea of moral absolutes and therefore hates the very essence of our nation- our Judeo-Christian underpinnings which they daily seek to denounce, destabilize,deride, and destroy in there inexorable effort to undermine America and push us into world govt (i.e. a one world Communist international-global government).

Nice work Mark spelling it out clearly and concisely.

Liberals have become, in essence, the anti-Christian Party.

Gregg Jackson
Pundit Review Radio and author of "Cosnervative Comebacks to Liberal Lies."

Babba,

Well, with your particular attitude and worldview I certainly wouldn't want you to operate on me - certainly don't want a person who is unclear on God to be working on me. However, if you were to pray with be before you started, my concerns would be greatly alleviated.

I forgive you lack of historical knowledge on account of your obviously being more concerned with obtaining knowledge more specific to your calling - we don't, in the end, need a doctor who can give us a history of the French Revolution while he's operating on us. But as you are here and are clearly a person who can absorb a lot of information, I'll advise you that the French Revolution was made by the upper middle class who were far less interested in Liberty, Equality and Fraternity than they were in grasping the levers of power held until 1789 by the Nobility and Clergy. Only for a short time did the Revolution get out of upper middle class hands, and even then it was led mostly by upper middle class people...and, of course, it drowned itself in the blood of the September Massacre and the Terror.

Outside of that interval and a few things such as the Paris Commune of 1871, France has been and for all intents and purposes looks forever to be ruled by the upper middle class...the fact that they are running France into the grave is no surprise, as they've been doing it since they took over in 1789 (most people don't remember that France was the most powerful nation in Europe at that time...less than a century later, France was utterly crushed by a Prussia which, in 1789, had been a third rank power).

You might, if your practice allows the time, try to free yourself from the pat answers provided by your sophomore year classes on history. The history of the world is not a straght-line progression from bad to good - just because we have daily hot showers and nuclear weapons it doesn't mean we are necessarily the moral superiors of people who lived in the past.

Ricorun,

Not all liberals are libertines, but liberalism tends to encourage libertinism, in my view. Liberalism pre-supposes that the moral strictures of what is today called "traditional values" were set in place to rule over men made unruly by the unjust nature of society. Set aside the traditional values and rework the laws in a sensible, rational manner and the New Man will be born, inherently reasonable in nature. The unfortunate consequence of this are things like the fact that pornography is now considered rather hum-drum.

We conservatives, on the other hand, hold that the injustices of society are the result of the unruly nature of mankind - a nature which must be curbed at every turn if we are to have any justice at all. It is a rather pointless task to, say, make a new law restricting campaign finance if we are not setting about to improve the overall moral character of those who seek public office.

What's so great about the Democrats, huh?

Well, they're for taxing the rich, who don't need the money, instead of the middle class or poor in order to pay for stuff. And they end up with a SURPLUS (like Clinton) and not the DEFICIT Bush has.

They're for tighter gun control to prevent stuff like the Virginia Tech thing.

They're for pulling out of Iraq. We've been back and forth on this one before, so I'm not gonna spell out my reasons again...but you should know them by now.

They believe that flaunting the Constitution to get terrorists is NOT ok. Bush does (wiretaps, abuse of patriot act, denying prisoners in Gitmo right to a lawyer and access to evidence against them).

They're against unreliable unethical torture (Gitmo, Abu Ghraib).

They deal with reality.

Come on, you should know by now why liberals are liberals and why you guys are neocons and stuff. We have different solutions to what pretty much amount to be the same problems.

And as for the amount of liberal readers...well, you get under our skin by lying, putting your spin on the news, ignoring reality, having arguments with little or no evidence, etc. etc. So its that people believe your stupidity that we tune in and call you for it, not because you actually present logical arguments. Though you do do that occasionally...

ThELefTYFoOL

Mark, I have little respect for what you say, but -- as both liberal and conservative Americans believe -- I would defend your right to say it if our government ever tried to censor or squelch your speech.

However, I must vehemently disagree with the way in which you've let your own bias influence your definitions of "liberal" and "conservative". You seem like an intelligent guy, so I can't help but think you're being a bit willfully ignorant here.

In our country, we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to guide us. If that wasn't what the founders intended, they wouldn't have written the documents and explicitly instructed us to use them to run the country.

Judeo-Christian values, which I share with many on this blog, are incredibly important to society -- but they should be absolutely invisible to government. The founders wax poetic on the divine Providence which brought them to the New World, and the holiness of the place; they did not, however, talk about the Lord's place on the Supreme Court, and there is no mention of deities or faith in our tax code.

When one strongly believes that a man's faith ought to influence the way his nation is governed, he is a theocrat. A theocrat is almost necessarily authoritarian. We do not have an authoritarian government in this country, nor will we ever; your goals will not be served in the United States. Israel is more tolerant of this; Turkey, also -- though their secular military has threatened to intervene if a Muslim president should be elected.

Would the military intervene in an election if a Christian or a Jew were to be elected president in this country? Of course not! Every president we've had has been faithful to Judeo-Christian values, and most Americans are.

This is an issue of morals and faith, something that should be taught in the Church and practiced in the home, and shared with others in the community and beyond -- but neither faith nor morality has any bearing on the operation of our Republic. Our Republic exists to serve justice and observe ethics, not morals.

Read that again, Mark, because there's a difference. You'd be surprised how many Americans who share your strong beliefs also share this particular misunderstanding. You may simply accept that this is a coincidence -- at your peril. It seems to me as if there has been some effort devoted to blurring the line between ethics and morality. So let me help, with some assistance from the old OED (Oxford English Dictionary):

You can be an ethical person without necessarily being a moral one, since ethical implies conformity with a code of fair and honest behavior in business or in a profession (an ethical legislator who didn't believe in cutting deals), while moral refers to generally accepted standards of goodness and rightness in character and conduct -- especially sexual conduct (the moral values she'd learned from her mother)

From definition of "moral", disambiguation

In other words, you have a sense of morals; so have I. They're probably not very similar, but they're not intended to be -- because morals are personal. You may get them from your church, from your mentor, from your parents, or even from the television shows you watch on MTV. Hopefully not, but it could happen. In any event, those morals guide your personal actions: if you believe abortion is morally wrong, then you wouldn't have an abortion; if you believe guns are morally wrong, you wouldn't carry one -- or even own one.

There are some people who believe that guns are not only -not- morally wrong, but that it is a moral imperative to carry one for the protection of one's self and family. This is a noble aim, certainly -- but no matter how strongly your morals inform these actions, you could never work at the Pentagon. Why? Because their code of ethics forbids people from bringing weapons into the building. They don't want people killing each other inside -- and who could blame them?

It's really simple: if you're not willing to accept that our government's ethical code as embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights will always trump an individual's morality, then you're going to have a hard time living here. Go ahead, ask the abortion clinic bomber how much weight the judge gave to the claim that God instructed him to do what he did.

Morals are important, but they're just yours. We all live by the same ethical code in this country, and you're crazy if you think you can change that ethical code to suit your morals. It's just not possible.

I'd rather explain to you why I go to your website so often. I read the paper, see the news, and read stuff on the internet. I come here to see for myself how you can justify the hypocracy and incompetence I see in the White House and the republican congress. I understand now you are "faithbased", which to me is pathetic, but to you is a compliment. Who are you going to be "for" in 2008? Will you criticise Bush then? PS I've noticed you haven't written much about Gonzales or Tenet...Kinda indefensible, isn't it?