Ch'i....if you want to start a new thread on liberalism/conservatism (based on Ustwo's premise or not), I will be happy to debate it.
Quote:
|
The difference between liberalism and conservatism seems to be one rallies against human nature and tries to force us to become what they think humans should be, while one accepts it and works out the best solutions we can understanding that nature and accepting its short comings.
|
For now, I will suggest that it was predominantly "liberal" programs and liberalism (as it is/was characterized and practiced in US politics.. ie an active govt role vs limited govt conservatism.. rather than a classical political/economic sense) that
created the post-WW II middle class (GI bill - opening the opportunity for college to millions of returing vets, programs to expand home ownership - Fannie Mae, programs enhancing small business opportunities - SBA loan programs, etc), provided retirement and affordable health security to seniors (social security and Medicare- both need fixing now), intiated the
civil rights movement and programs to
protect the environment, promoted scientific and technological research through government grants.....
Now if you think these examples are
"against human nature and tries to force us to become what they think humans should be", as I said, I would be happy to discuss it further in a new thread....I would suggest it is religious social conservatism in the US that has these characteristics.
And, I persisted with my observation regarding Ustwo's follow-up comment to my initial observation of his "hit and run" tactics ("There are about 15 liberals to one conservative that posts, I'm not going to respond to everyone who thinks they have a point.") with an example -- I simply pointed out he if post an article and comment that criticizes others here as "armchair experts", he should stay around and debate it.
The same would apply to his latest sweeping characterization (or mischaracterization IMO) of liberalism/conservatiism. If he is going to offer that kind of controversial commentary, he should have the courage of his convictions to debate it and defend it.
I thought a public response was reasonable (considering all the threadjacking that goes on in the political forum) and I stand by what I wrote.