Politics aside, the woman is an arsehole.
Don't do it, Mac! Hugs from Bane are never a good thing!
Politics aside, the woman is an arsehole.
I think like is a lot sweeter during economic boom of the 90s when both parties had to struggle to find any real difference between the two platforms aside from the abortion debate and even that was becoming more bipartisan.
There are still quite a few people out there who cling to the traditional profile of a conservative and are people that I can respect... David Frum, Joe Scarborough, George Will (except when he gets on one of his bizarre frustrated rants) are some of the well-known ones. But I don't know how these people can stand being in the same political party as Allen West, Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachman. Are they really waiting around for this train wreck to start swinging back towards what it was in the days of Eisenhower, or even Reagan... or even G.W. Bush, for God's sake?
And most self-described conservatives... even the reasonable ones... will end up voting for Mitt Romney, who seems friendly and rational and avuncular, but who once in office would immediately set about doing the absolute bidding of the lunatic wingnuts who comprise the majority of his party. Which, of course, is the same thing as actually being one of those lunatic wingnuts.
Unfortunately, the word "conservative" (like the word "Christian" before it, and "patriot" even before that) has come to mean something very different than what it used to mean, and should still mean.
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." --Benito Mussolini
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson
My conservative voice is Thomas Sowell. But he isn't antagonistic enough for the editors. They want Ann Coulter. Shrill harpies sell papers.
I actually used to subscribe to National Review and voted for Reagan in '84 (first time I could vote) and Bush I in 1988. But after that the whole "moral issues" turned me off: I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to marry and it's none of my business if Mary Sue down the block wants to have an abortion. The whole bullying mentality of the current GOP has made me more of a liberal, they moved the lines, not me.
I identify with this, Mac.Originally Posted by MacQuarrie
The big difference for me is that I'll acknowledge I actually shifted a bit to the left, I was a somewhat odd fit before, and I've shifted more to the left in reaction to conservatives.
I was a populist far right libertarian who supported Pat Buchanan in the 90s, when I was a teenager.
I am still somewhat isolationist but have no use for the bigotry or cult like pseudo-religious Baptist cow towing on the right. Becoming aware of bigotry over there made me uncomfortable although I'll applaud guys like Bob Dole for combatting it and refusing to use it for political advantage. And I used to honestly believe that the elites in society would practice exponentially, massively more philanthropy if taxed less... And they haven't. So I feel lied to there.
And right wing populism has turned anti-science and anti-academic. Which turns my stomach. Because education is the ultimate democratizing force. It creates mobility. There's also the point that democracy tends to skew towards the mediocre and you need education to lift the middle.
I would be a far left socialist now except that I find that the left and right BOTH fundamentally see human nature as wicked and seem to be relishing the day when humanity falls.
I'm a futurist. I believe that scarcity is negotiable and that human beings are constantly improving, provided we reinvest in them. Today is better than yesterday, adjusted for isolated stupidity. I want the 1950s suburbs, Victorian England, collective farms, and foraging for nuts and berries to ALL stay in the past. I don't want a crash or a return... And I don't believe we'll have one unless we engineer it for ourselves.
All apocalypses are evitable. We could do nothing but grow and improve for centuries, maybe millennia, improving the standard of living for ALL, from first world to third. But we have to embrace that and be modestly sensible while also being immodestly daring in the scope of our vision.
Doesn't seem like there's a party for people who think like that.
On religion and government:
I'll concede that I grew up in non-denominational churches (mostly very conservative) that had no denominational hierarchy and rejected the idea that they were Protestant, but...
My distinct impression of the judo-Christian god is that he's an apathetic anarchist.
That is to say, he opposed the establishment of a king in Israel but took the stance of, "Fine. Whatever. Do what you want. It's got nothing to do with me."
Then the kings started having big orgies and stealing wives and murdering and studying the dark arts, and God said, basically, "That's really dumb of you. But it's got nothing to do with me."
Then Jesus comes along and people want him to be this revolutionary or use him as an excuse to stop paying taxes. And he said, "That's got nothing to do with me." (Heck, tax exempt churches strike me as a defiance of Jesus' teachings.)
And people started theocracies or made theocratic appeals and rallied troops for genocide and conquest. And way back in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "That is the opposite of what I'm here for."
And today, you have people like the Prayer Breakfast types comparing Jesus to Stalin, Gengis Khan, Hitler and the like, using Christianity to justify adultery and power grabs and teaching prosperity gospel variants... And I think that would pretty much have God stunned into total silence, even if He saw it with omniscient foresight.