Ed:

And how, precisely, do "liberal solutions" get implemented?

At gunpoint.

A vote for "liberalism" (the modern definition; "big government solutions")
is clearly a vote for totalitarianism.

A vote for modern "conservatism" is different only in degree, not principle.
Vote for your economic freedoms to be taken away first, then your freedom of
action . . . or vice versa.

Steve Swartz


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:38:45 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:


Totalitarianism is a bit extreme, but a vote for Kerry, or any other
liberal, is certainly a vote against freedom.

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.

Robey

I've got to find myself on the same side of the fence (for this one
instance) as Juvat. Certainly characterizing a vote for a liberal as a
vote against freedom is ignoring the essentials of the two primary
ideologies in America.

Characteristically the liberal ideology is based on a belief that
government is the best solution to societal problems. Taken further
left we get to welfare statism, socialism and eventually at the
extreme communism. Examples of liberal approaches are things like
Social Security, Medicare, publicly funded education, etc. Often these
solutions are very effective.

Conversely the basic element of traditional convervatism is a
free-market solution, focussed on individual responsibility. Want
health care? Get insured. Want a retirement? Put something away. Don't
expect government to do it for you. These approaches can work as well.

Trends in liberal/conservative ideology is for liberals to support the
workers (unions) and conservatives to support entrepreneurs and
management. Liberals focus government spending on social programs
while conservatives tend toward strong defense ("guns vs butter").

Inevitably government programs cost money, so a liberal administration
will lead toward higher taxes, but this is usually balanced by
including some element of "redistribution of wealth"--the progressive
tax structure of the IRS, for example. This is acceptable to some
point as folks weigh the cost/benefit of dollars paid in tax against
service provided.

The conservative side of American politics, however, is split between
traditional (i.e. fiscal) conservatives and social conservatives.
Quite clearly the social conservative side of the ideology actually
can restrict freedom as much as the liberal in their desire to impose
a standard of morality no society as a whole. Good example is liberals
support gun control (loss of 2nd Amendment freedom) while social
conservatives support censorship, prayer in school, campaign finance
reform, and a high degree of homphobia--arguably losses of 1st
Amendment freedoms.

The reality of the situation is that both sides run to the extremes
for the primary season and then back to the moderate middle for
general elections. Both sides wind up compromising to build policies
that can pass the legislative process. Clinton was arguably a fairly
moderate Democrat and Bush 43 has espoused some clearly liberal
positions such as steel and plywood tariffs or federally funded
prescription drug programs.

Illuminated yet?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8