emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
The best explanation I've read so far about the difference between today's Liberals and Conservatives
was Allen West in his book on defending the Republic.
He explains that the current liberals follow the Radical Liberal views of Rousseau who believed that the govt imposed the will of the people to force everyone to adhere; while the current conservatives came from the Classic Liberal views of Locke on using the Constitutional laws to limit govt with checks and balances to prevent overreaching and abuse [of collective authority].
the split between black conservative and black liberals began way back with Booker T. Washington pushing for economic independence [to create equality by freedom] while the other crowd pushed to depend on govt and political power to force policy on people [to force equality by taking away freedom, and not trusting people].
He also adds in there about Marxism and other influences from the Progressive push to use govt for support and social programs in the recovery efforts after the war and depression.
so it seems it's always been one group that trusts that freedom comes from God, and govt that limits freedom should itself be kept to a minimum; while the other believes freedom is protected by govt and doesn't trust this business of churches teaching it comes from God which puts church authority in control instead of keeping control by govt to represent the people
One group trusts people to act as the church body to act freely, and does not trust govt which takes freedom away unless you check it by Constitutional limits. while the other doesn't trust the people to manage their own business and especially not the church leadership seen as corrupt and abusive, and trusts govt to represent and enforce the will of the people, so it isn't seen as taking freedom away which is blamed on the church and conservative crowd instead.
The best explanation I've seen so far is from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich August von Hayek...
"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom
"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative
Dear Bfgrn
I think the Greens and Libertarians have more of a sense of blaming the Corporate corruption and abuse of the system,
instead of just blaming Conservatives for promoting the free market which these Corporate interests take advantage of.
I find the liberals lump the Corporate corruption in with the Conservatives and that's where this idea comes from that they support such abuses of govt.
In reality, the Conservatives want limited govt and want Constitutional checks and restrictions.
The Problem, which it seems only the Greens and maybe Libertarians understand
is that Corporations are bypassing the Constitutional checks on govt
but still abusing their collective influence and resources
by invoking the same equal protections as individuals!
the Republicans blame the Democrats for letting their corporate cronies benefit off govt dealings,
the Democrats blame Republicans for deregulating to let corporations run wild,
and only the Greens seem to check both parties saying its the corporations running wild without check.
your above quote doesn't seem to distinguish the Republican push to limit and check govt constitutionally
from the corporate interests taking advantage of personhood to enjoy unchecked advantage.
As long as both parties just chalk off the blame for corporate crookedness onto the other party,
these people pulling the strings and buying out the campaigns of both parties keep getting their way.
this is the argument the Greens have made and it isn't being heard.
the Tea Party is also demonized in the media for going after crony politicians in both parties. which would ruin the game for the media conglomerates adn other interests who profit off the partisan drama that acts as a distraction.
while the corporations keep getting their way unchecked because the parties point fingers at each other.
what would happen if the people in all parties demanded that their party leaders
take all these grievances, all these complaints of corruption by the opposing parties,
and start collecting or crediting back the taxpayers for the costs. why couldn't we track
all the wrongdoing and start chargin g that back to the corporate cronies who ran off with tax money.
how much in credits could we bill to wrongdoers instead of expecting taxpayers to cover these costs?