I recently discovered a very well-written reply to my May 15th post that somehow escaped my email--or maybe I deleted it and forgot, I don't remember.
Anyway, I did take a step back after reading her post and began to ask myself, "Ok, just what does 'Liberal' mean?"
So I asked people.
On another blogsite, I posted the question of what a liberal was. I got a lot of interesting answers.
One person stated that when most commentators call someone a liberal, they mean leftist or socialist; one who wants strong governmental control over the economy, business, and invasion of privacy into our finances.
Others had a whole lot of things to say, but simply echoed Rush for the most part.
In other words, there is a huge difference between leftist, liberal, conservative, and rightwing nutjobs, as I have heard them called.
One person put it best, saying that our founding fathers were liberal-conservative, people who had the strong desire to improve things for the better, but were cautious about doing so; they respected traditions but were not bound by them. They recognized government is necessary, but wanted to limit it.
The trouble is, neither of our parties we choose from exemplify this "standard," if you will. Our current national DNC is so left it's not even funny, and our current national GOP has incorporated some social agendas in that detract sometimes from larger issues.
So, to correct myself, I am not "anti-liberal;" I'm anti-looney left. And, although I would like to be called a liberal-conservative, I lean toward being a rightwing nutjob, probably to counter the looney-left's agenda, I guess.
But alas, in the real world, we have two parties to choose from. I just hope that the sane people in both parties try to change their party into having more of a liberal-conservative flavor than extremism. That would require people to sit down rationally and discuss issues rather than beat each other over the head (or run out of meetings and take the gavel.) What do you think?
Until next time...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
LR, are you going soft? (kidding)
The reality of the situation is that the democratic party of today IS mostly the looney left. If Truman were alive today, he'd be mad as hell about what Kennedy, Kerry and the like have turned this party into. It's unfortunate that those who are "anti-looney left" are basically anti-democrat at this point in time. A lot of what most local democrats truly care about is worth doing something about, it's just that the leftists screw it all up with their weirdo agendas.
Some have claimed the republicans want a "theocracy," and that's sad those people think that way. I think a lot of Christians have chosen the republican side simply because the democrats have appeared to be so anti-Christian. However, to give my opponents some credit, many of the issues republicans have been siding on are also issues that are near and dear to Christians. The fact that many republicans believe in the sanctity of human life or want to see traditional morals and ethics preserved is not necessarily a religious issue. People notice when good/bad, right/wrong, productive/non-productive are being messed with, and they don't like it. Certainly some of these people may be motivated by a religious bias, but many are motivated out of plain old common sense. (BTW, this seems to lacking a lot in the world these days. Why would anyone in their right mind let their child sleep over with a guy that has been accused on several occasions of being a pedophile? Common sense, people, common sense.)
I don't think you are ever going to see people in either party adopt a liberal-conservative approach as you defined it, especially today's national democrats. They are, as VP puts it, the party of NO. The leadership goes out of their way to become the antithesis of whatever the republicans are doing, regardless of what it is. If this philosophy continues, you will never see any co-operation between these two parties.
I do have one last question...did he bring the gavel back? Is it intact? Did it abuse any holy books while it was out?
Interesting post, LR. I wonder what the right honorable gentlemen on the other side of the aisle will say. This should be good.
If you get to define whether a modern Democrat is a proper Democrat, MCR, do I get to decide if you are an appropriate modern Republican?
Proper? What does that mean in this context? I didn't qualify any of my remarks with the word 'proper.'
I'm not sure what you are asking.
Please pay attention to the language I used: MOSTLY, HAVE APPEARED TO BE, IF. I don't say things ARE, I say they MOSTLY are, or APPEAR TO BE, or IF something is true. I did not define "proper." I merely listed observations.
You may also list your observations anytime you like. That's why this forum is here.
Post a Comment