lurkette

I'm fascinated by the conservative-liberal divide in the U.S. It seems more and more like there are actually TWO countries, superimposed on top of each other. And I find myself wondering whether the issue is that the two "camps" actually have different visions for the country, or if we simply have different ideas of what is the best way to achieve those visions. For example, I think most everyone would agree that it would be great for everyone to have health care; the key divide is that liberals think the government ought to ensure that it's provided, and conservatives think that businesses and individuals should take care of it themselves. The key difference in emphasis seems to be one of values, of what the best endpoint is: universal health care vs. government nonintervention.

I think it probably varies from issue to issue, but generally it seems like there is a "culture war" over the identity of the U.S. that bleeds into public policy. I'd like to find out what your perceptions are. Anyone who's read my posts knows I lean so far to the left I'm practically lying down, but I'm open to being educated by my conservative and libertarian colleagues.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

JBX

No party represents me, so I have no voice in policy.
I am...

No religion in politics
Pro Choice (But figure out what you want to do in 6 weeks)
Pro Right to die.
Small Government.
Anti ridiculous jury settlements (Tobacco)
Pro Constitution
No censorship
Be responsible for your own actions. A Video game didn't make you kill.
Pro Death Penality - Soon after Conviction
Less Taxes
Less entitlement programs
Freeing the people of Iraq was good.

Shall I continue?

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

Peryn

I think it asbolutely simply a means to the goal we disagree on....on most issues. One side believes that they are the correct way to get to that end, and the other side believes that those same beliefs will lead us all to eternal damnation. But the fact of the matter is, there is no "right" way to do it. If there were, we would not have people backing up the wrong side. Neither side knows for FACT that their ideas will lead to a better end. We simply have to try it to find out.

On other issues we totally disagree on what teh end should be. Take abortion for example. The means isn't the issue, the end is. Take healthcare. We would all like everyone to be able to have some form of healthcare, but there is a bitter argument over how. For the most part, i think both sides agree on the end result..which is ok. As long as we know where we want to go, there is only one way to find out if we are going the right way to that end....trial and error.


One could also argue that it is not a matter of parties disagreeing on the end or the means, but rather that one side is only concentrating on the end, without thinking much about their means. While the other side is more worryied about how they are getting there than where they are going. Again, take your healthcare example. The leftmost side of the country seems to believe that government should take care of us. Frankly, i haven't heard a very good explanation of teh how...where the money is coming from, who is going to do it, etc. In my opinion, they seem to be more focused on the goal than how to acheive it. The conservatives seem to want to give us all healthcare as well. But they seem to be caught up on who and how they get it, where the money comes from, the regulations involved, etc...all the hows. But they aren't always looking far enough toward the end goal to really see where its taking them.

I know this was little more than observations, but it seems like *in general* most people have the same vision for where this country should be going.

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

hlprmnky

As an old debate coach of mine used to say:
"Anarchists and libertarians want the same thing: no government. They just believe different things will come to pass when they get what they want."

mml

I stongly believe that on most issues, the end result is the same. You mentioned healthcare, and I think that we would all like it if everyone had coverage. The difference, as has already been stated, is how we get there. The reality is that as the economy and national and international situations change, the actual solutions change. Which is part of the reason one party or the other is dominant.

The big divide does seem to come from differences on social issues. Abortion, civil rights, gun control, religion etc. These issues are the ones that tend to cause the big rifts and the nastiest fights. If you look at the divide between our two parties and those of some other countries, you realize how truely similar our parties are. We are just Americans, and frankly Americans love to argue.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

Liquor Dealer

I think the basic difference is that we all want the same thing - how we get there, who runs it, and who is paying for it is where we begin to separate. I am from the South and the West - We are not very liberal in our part of the world - or at least a large number of us aren't. In my opinion, government, on the national level, should have the power and the obligation to enforce Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

All powers other than those stated are powers of the individual states - I believe we fought a war once over a dispute regarding these powers.

Medical care is an obligation of the person, not of the state. Interference, by Congress, with various social programs and entitlements, has made the costs of medical care unaffordable for most who have to pay for it themselves. Just my opinion, but I believe when everyone was responsible for paying for their own bills, insurance, etc., health care was affordable - now, to make up for all the government gimmies and semi-gimmies, those who are attempting to pay their own way are having to pick up all the charges of those who don't pay. Somewhere in here there is something that cannot continue to work the way it is going at the present time.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

onetime2

I don't think it's necessarily that we have the same goals. I think there are some fundamental beliefs in the two sides that are different and they revolve around whether the impact we (either the country or humans in general) have is fundamentally acceptable or unacceptable.

For the sake of discussion I may use some terms interchangeably that probably shouldn't be used so freely. But it's difficult to have this discussion without grouping political groups and causes together.

Lets take environmentalism as an example. I think many that are on the "left" look at human interaction with nature as a negative with the belief that we do mostly harm to nature. On the "right" I think there is a belief that we are a part of nature and, while some of the things we do are negative and there needs to be some accountability, overall we are like ants building a colony. We take the resources we need and really don't do too much damage to the surroundings.

In foreign policy I think the beliefs are similar. The "left" sees all the mistakes we've made in the past and the insensitivity shown to other cultures as a huge stumbling block and something we should be ashamed of. The "right" sees them as being on par with what goes on around the world on a regular basis (kind of a looking out for ourselves mentality that all countries have).

This is just a quick outpouring of thoughts on the subject. For all I know what I just wrote makes no sense at all, so take it for what it's worth.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

geep

I've thought about this post for some time now, and it represents to me the stigma we have placed on political thought. I have a friend, a farmer, who hates paying taxes, is against abortion, and votes Democrat. He feels that the Democrats represent him against the big business interests that he feels seek to take advantage of him. When asked if he is liberal he seems to believe that because he is a Democrat, he must be. He is not an idiot, nor is he alone in his confusion. I believe that our current political practice forces people into camps of thought. You are either Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican. We seem to have lost our own beliefs in the struggle to better our parties standing and power. The "Us against Them" mentality has compromised our ability to govern ourselves.

Charlatan

I think geep has put his finger on the problem as I see it in US politics... The political spectrum is just that, a spectrum. However, the US system has instituted a binary system.

Other forms of government, for example the Parlimentary system tend to allow a lot more flexibility with regards to the broader ranger of issues.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

prb

If you can't afford to pay for your medical care - - -Die!

If you are ugly, old, or disabled and can't attract a sex partner but could afford to buy one - - - too bad, No Sex For You!

If you are the victim of a negligent doctor, careless corporation, or reckless driver - - - So what. Get over it. No Lawsuit For You!

If you think we should act as caretakers of the environment for future generations to come - - - forget it. Natural resources should be plundered now in our lifetime. Fuck our children and grandchildren!

If you aren't white, Christian, and heterosexual then we have nothing in common - - - why don't you find some other country to live in?

If you aren't a Republican then you are an unpatriotic Liberal/Communist/Socialist traitor Democrat - - - and you should do us all a favor and just Die!

Every man, woman and child for themselves. No welfare benefits for anyone - - - Except corporations. Because when we throw money to corporations they give us back jobs. What's good for General Motors is good for America.

Pay no attention to the Liberal Media. Anything they say is pure lies. Listen only to talk radio and Fox News for they report the truth and will tell you what to believe.

/What I think. - - - A die-hard Republican's 2 cents.

mb99usa

I try not ot get involved in political discussions because I do not follow politics closely.

This post however hits on why I do not follow politics. I find it amusing how we as Americans love to separate ourselves into groups and then scream that we want equality. If you voluntarily place yourself into a group you are going to find an opposing group.

I also find the term "liberal media" amusing. The so-called conservatives ranting about the "liberal media" are all part of the media. This is the one area that the opposing group remains silent. You never hear about the "conservative media".

I also think that religion plays too big a part in our political system. We say in the Constitution that we want the separation of Church and state yet a politician's personal religious views are involved in their campaign. Their religious view should not have any bearing on the job they perform.

Not sure if any of this makes sense or is even relavent but it just gets to me when a politicians party affiliation seems to be more important than the way they voted on the last bill.

__________________
So, what's your point?

It's not an attitude, it's a way of life.