Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
You got peanut butter in my chocolate!(sorry, couldn't resist)
Concise answer: You got older.Everything has to be paid for.Easy to deny or overlook when you're a kid. You've got to be a blockhead to fail to acknowledge this when you're older.
The last year or so I've started saying, "I'm conservative for liberal reasons." One example: I don't think liberalism helps the poor they talk about helping, while job creation, expectations of responsibility, and an active robust economy does, so I'm a conservative because I care about the poor.
I've just about given up with the labels. I'm not even the most skeptical person I know.
I am a conservative conservative.Trey
You can tell who is who by who was exclaiming and who is just talking.
I am a cynical SOB.
We have a bunch of commenters on this site who are obsessed with labeling others as conservative or liberal. They are almost always liberal, and they use the word conservative as a sort of accusation.Why?Because to become conservative is to betray youth. Young people are more likely to be liberal because they refuse to acknowledge cost. They are also ignorant of tradition, and want to believe that tradition is simply arbitrary, rather than the result of accumulated human experience.Remaining true to liberalism is the same as remaining true to the ideals of youth and remaining loyal to the culture of college and high school. Becoming an adult and an individual is the ultimate betrayal.
Isn't a classical liberalism what today is called a conservativism?Invoking liberalism, or progressivism, today is largely a way to obscure the Marxist taint.
"We have a bunch of commenters on this site who are obsessed with labeling others as conservative or liberal. They are almost always liberal, and they use the word conservative as a sort of accusation."“I'm AlphaLiberal, et al., and we're here to represent the illiberal wing of Liberalism.”
I'm a classical liberal - still primarily concerned about liberty. Political liberty and personal liberty over time are possible only in a society based on economic liberty. It's that simple in principle. That said, there is a role for both conservative and 'progressive' private institutions - much of what is odious if done by the state is acceptable, even laudable, if done voluntarily by private citizens and their voluntary institutions.Moreover, because things may be legal does not mean they are socially (or morally) acceptable, or (worse) good. We should never conflate what is legal with what is moral.Republics do not long survive without civic virtue - an amorphous thing that cannot be mandated, let alone precisely defined. Republics that lose it either morph (mestastasize?) into empires or are conquered by others.
Either one, watch 'em. The giveaway is the word liberal. They'll have their hand in your pocket before mid morning.
I have no more use for conservatives than I do for liberals, but I have more respect for them.
"Are you a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative."I'm afraid it's too late to matter.
I am a cynical SOB.Get in line.
Politics doesn't define my life.It probably doesn't seem that way if you read my comments here. But, I really don't give a damn about politics. Talking and writing about politics is just a way to pass the time.I don't expect anything from politics or politicians. I'm not looking to that venue for any substantive contribution to my life.This, in an odd way, makes you a default conservative. I don't trust anybody to represent me. I expect corruption, self-dealing and stupidity.I write and talk about politics online, oddly, to abstract the subject from my personal life. I almost never talk politics with friends or family, except to express disgust with just about all factions, and I never bring politics to work or to my work as a musician. Doing so is just asking for unhappiness and anger.And, it's not worth it. Nothing to gain there.
There's a difference between having a political philosophy and being a partisan. And while a strongly-held political philosophy can be shaded, and is subject to change, partisanship is kinda an either-or proposition. An honest liberal is going to be disappointed by the Democrats much of the time. An honest conservative is going to be disappointed by the Republicans most of the time.
An honest liberal is going to be disappointed by the Democrats much of the time. An honest conservative is going to be disappointed by the Republicans most of the time.This seems the crux of this era.We just suffered through the most insane scam in, probably, the history of the world... i.e., the mortgage meltdown and the bailout of the investment banks that caused it.Both parties were complicit in this scam. Our entire political class probably should commit suicide in shame.Given this, how can anybody be a partisan of either side?
What's the opposite of those protesters in Madison? That's what I am.
"Are you a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative?"Only one of those terms makes any sense and it's not "liberal conservative."
One could even be a radical conservative liberal. What would a radical liberal conservative look like? Absurdity.
"What would a radical liberal conservative look like? Absurdity."= Andrew Sullivan.
"I am so conservative that I am a liberal or I am so liberal I am a conservative." Not sure which. A classical liberal is a conservative. Or vice versa.WV: blessel The little people who are blessed.
What about "soft-hearted libertarian?" I like to use that phrase, because it's less conservative than conservative and less liberal than liberal.Libertarians want govt. to butt out. I think there are occasions we need to butt in, such as when civilians are being slaughtered by despots.
My primary thing against folks who generally describe themselves as "liberal" has to do with their concept of compassion and the smug sense of self worth they derive from practicing compassion. Basically, they are in it to feel good about themselves, not help others.Voting for someone to spend other people's money (OPM) is not compassion. Getting paid to deliver such services is also not compassion--it's a job. True compassion is giving of your own time, self and resources without the expectation of anything in return. However, people who actually do those things are grounded enough to where they don't need to derive their sense of self worth from their compassionate acts.
Whatever label floats your boat is fine. The essence is the enforcement of private property rights protected by Courts composed of Judges, Lawyers and Juries. A just society does not throw out the enforcement of laws against theft, adultery and murder of the innocent, whether that is said to be done for a liberal Collective Gang in power or done for a conservative Capitalist Gang in power. The only enemy is confusion that either Gang in power is worth throwing away the Judeo-Christian heritage of Justice for.
In my mind a "classical liberal" is more properly labeled a libertarian in today's parlance. I call myself a "libertarian leaning conservative". Conservative implies a lot of faithfulness to tradition (including religion)... which oddly enough I find myself rejecting as I get older. Nowadays I don't give a rat's ass if gays want to get married, etc.
Nowadays I don't give a rat's ass if gays want to get married, etc.I agree. And, on the other hand, I'm not in favor of gays getting married either.It's a pretty goofy idea, but WTF? I don't run the world. Nor, do I want to.
I'm a new conservative, being atheist and a different focus:"When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. it will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley." - George Carlin"Zen masters will control you100% naturalYou will jog for the master raceand wear the smily face"- The Dead Kennedy's"Enjoy it while it last, people - smile!" - Me
Rick Lee said... In my mind a "classical liberal" is more properly labeled a libertarian in today's parlance.There is much upon which classical liberals and libertarians would agree, but it is easily possible to be personally conservative on matters of morality and still be a classical liberal -- you would simply take the view that the state may not legislate morality, but a community could 'punish' behavior regarded within the community as immoral with private behavior such as boycott or shunning -- but I think there are few avowed libertarians who do not take an 'anything goes', almost libertine stance towards conventional morality.
I think the underlying sentiment behind conservatism is appreciation of our own fallibility and of the wisdom, knowledge, and good intent of those who have come before us. So that conservatives are less likely to believe that new ideas are necessarily better than old, or that traditional solutions are not worth keeping.Liberalism, on the other hand, is animated by the belief that true progress is possible, and that, by learning from the experience of others, we can move on to significant improvements in our condition.So understood, I think it becomes clear why both traditions persist, and why, even though one or the other may be in the ascendancy at any given time, that time will wane.It can also account for the idea that in our youth, when we are convinced of the folly of our elders, we may be more liberal, while later, chastened by our own folly, we may wax conservative.
You know, Tim, I am just the opposite. I don't care for liberals or conservatives but I have more respect for the liberals. I have tried and tried to like conservatives but everytime I am confronted with the Beck's, Barbour's and Gingrich's I think I want to identify with them. Heck noGo figureVicki
Classical liberal aka a conservative.
Peter wrote: "An honest liberal is going to be disappointed by the Democrats much of the time. An honest conservative is going to be disappointed by the Republicans most of the time."Well said. Bush ushered me out of the Republican party. I became too disappointed!Trey
The first word is taken broadly, and the second word is taken narrowly, when they differ.It's the opposite when they're the same.
Yes. Thank you. And, it should be obvious, the broad first word modifies the narrow second.
I find myself uttering the phrase, "I'm a big "L" liberal, in the Lockean sense," when pressed to self-identify. (In reality, don't most of us think that we are the moderate standard by which humanity will be judged?)
"Are you now, or have you ever been..."
There's no such thing as a "liberal conservative" or a "conservative liberal". The liberals are now all huge government socialist progressives. The "conservatives" are wimps. I'm basically a libertarian, but I will never call myself a "classic liberal" because I do NOT want to be associated with the garbage that passes as a liberal today.
I like W.S. Churchills "pithy" description of his conservative philosophy that he gave in one of his many letters to his Mother: "Look before you leap--and don't leap if you can find a ladder."
Overheard by whom?
I'm basically a libertarian, but I will never call myself a "classic liberal" because I do NOT want to be associated with the garbage that passes as a liberal today.I like Jerry Pournelle's self-description as a "twelfth-century liberal."
Speaking of Jerry Pournelle, the following article is very perceptive:http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm(This attempts to resolve the problem that conservatives at once demand government get out of people's lives, but then want the state to regulate marriage. This is but one example of the problem of simply using conserative/liberal.)
I don't care for liberals or conservatives but I have more respect for the liberals. (9:48)Yeah. John Edwards, Teddy Kennedy, Michael Moore, George Soros and John Kerry are my idols too. LOL
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.~~~~~Again, it is interesting the U.S. Constitution, like the Bible can be interpreted every which way to Sunday depending on one's political agenda.ie so many 5/4 decisionsIt is also interesting until the faux TP'ers sprang into action recently, liberals have always been the party of protest, whereas conservatives never protested, hence, ergo, therefore liberals are (((radicals))) and conservatives are the status quo, whatever the hell that means.“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”“Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.”“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”Thomas Jefferson>Again paraphrasing a David Frost interview w/Gore Vidal around (35) years ago: There isn't a spit of difference between Dems/Reps as once they get elected, most are only worried about getting re-elected ie raising $$$ from PACS, lobbyists, special interests etc.It would be interesting to know what the Founding Fathers thought about kucinich, bachmann, mama grizzly the quitter, etc.Mentioned in a previous thread ~ Americans have the attention span of a peanut and this works out well for many politicians, eh.>Also political ideology has very little to do w/presidential elections as one party screws up and is replaced by the other party.Irrelevant party platforms notwithstanding.
Using the definitions of this defunct blog I used to read, I am balanced in that I hold both right and left wing positions, which doesn't make me a centrist, because my positions are not typically compromises between left and right. But I'm not extreme on all positions--some are centrist views. One might say I'm random, because given any position it's pretty much the same chance whether I'm extreme right, right, centrist, left, or extreme left. But of course I am not random because I have definite well-formed opinions for my positions--I'm independent, but not because I roll dice to choose my positions. The reason the correct opinions (mine are basically correct) make one appear random testifies to the uselessness of the left-right distinction in arriving at correct positions.Frequently I refuse even to say where I am on an issue, because I see the issue is phrased using inappropriate conflation. Oftentimes there are two properly distinct behaviors, one of which is stupid, unjust sacrifice, and one of which is altruistic, just sacrifice. The people (typically the left) who are trying to encourage others to make stupid, unjust sacrifices toward them will try to make the stupid inappropriate sacrifices seem a subset of the altruistic, just sacrifices. On the other hand, the people (typically the right) who are trying to avoid making the altruistic sacrifices they should be making will try to make the altruistic appropriate sacrifices seem like stupid, unjust sacrifices. The end result of the manipulations is that people will tend to conflate the two concepts and fail to discriminate between self-sacrificing unjust stupidity and self-sacrificing just altruism. If you believe that the financial sector is ten times bigger than it should be and that it's workers tend to be vastly overpaid and should be forced to sacrifice, or more generally that enterprise needs to be restrained from being tyrannical, that doesn't mean that you are a communist who doesn't believe that people should be paid more if their jobs are more important and useful. And if you believe that people should be paid more if their jobs are important and useful, that doesn't mean you believe that corporations and financial corporations in particular are not frequently tyrannical and inappropriately selfish and should not be restrained and forced to make sacrifices.Sex is the clearest illustration of this conflation tendency. The most important sacrifices are those toward mates, e.g., the male caring well for a mate largely because he loves her and the female giving sex and fatherhood to a male even though he isn't going to care for her (say, because he cares for someone else more). Sodomy, on the other hand, is a universally stupid unjust sacrifice. The oftentimes altruistic sex without marriage that females can give is conflated with always stupid sodomy because the right wing whorishly (or from a selfish desire from the church to increase guilt and thus church attendance or from a selfish desire of the rich males to make it seem like women should excessively base sexual decisions on money) tries to make sex for unmarried females seem universally stupid like sodomy while the (pro-sodomy) left wing tries to make freedom to sodomize seem akin to the right to free love. And so we have terms like oral "sex" and anal "sex" for oral and rectal sodomy. Similarly, people are made to think sodomy and females getting off on each other is some sort of broader homosexual issue, because girls getting off on each other can be an important just behavior that unselfishly tends (by encouraging sharing) to reward whatever male they want most, whereas males sodomizing males (or females) is just nasty tyrannical disgusting addicting behavior--it's always stupid to wish to be sodomized.
I don't want to be near liberal anything.
Beth wrote:Overheard by whom?Heh. I find it telling that Beth is the first person in the comments to actually ask something of Meade and Ann, instead of launching forth into their own personal explanations. I probably would've done so, as well.But yes, overheard by whom? And how often do you talk political philosophy, amongst yourselves in Meadehouse's house.Cheers,Victoria
I am a free-market, anti-Statist traditionalist. I believe that the basis of a civilised society isn't equality, but self-control. I emphasise individualism whenever possible, over the collective. I am comfortable with hierarchies. I endorse the premise that families are crucial to society. I believe in God.Today, in the Western world, you would call me a conservative Conservative.Cheers,Victoria
EDH wrote:Isn't a classical liberalism what today is called a conservativism?Precisely. Further to this idea of changing labels, would ANY of us have been conservative Conservatives decrying the right to women to vote? Or being in favour of slavery?
I don't want to be near liberal anything.Then life must be quite uncomfortable for you ie liberals are everywhere, even MS, ID, etc. and gasp Wyoming.You may live near one and not even know it lol.One could easily argue if not for liberals, there would be no America ie the American Revolution, many pilgrims comin' to the colonies to escape European religious persecution notwithstanding.be afraid, be very afraid!take care
Beth (and vbspurs) said... "Overheard by whom?"Okay, you caught us. We both have a habit of thinking or reading out loud. Some people pad around their own homes, humming, or singing. We both like to air and expound. Sometime rather freely. Whether anyone is in the same room or not.Her posting about something like that on the blog is analogous to a person recording other people's candid behavior with a flip camera. How rude, right? So yeah, there may be a fine line between an insane asylum and Meadhouse. But in our defense, we do try to get it together before heading out the front door.
Words evolve. What does a "pure" conservative believe as opposed to a "pure" liberal? Nearly every issue requires a nuanced response rather than a straight "yes/no." For example, is capital punishment justified? Some will say "never" while others would say "for certain offenses." The experiment of the Althouse salon allows us to debate the nuances of the real world (as opposed to Crazy World).I would count myself as a Flexible Limitarian, occasionally a Modular Frisbeetarian. While utilitarianism is a good starting measure (most amount of good for the most amount of people), it breaks down when people argue about what is the "good." It also breaks down when "most amount of good" comes at a cost (financial or otherwise) to the minority.The debate also revolves around the role of government and the rule of law. Whether or not you care about politics is besides the point. As citizens and participants in this Great Experiment of a Democratic Republic, we are affected by the decisions of our elected officials. What do we expect out of our government at local, state and federal levels? Is it the role of government to bail out individuals or corporations for their own ineptitude or lack of capabilities? Paradigms are shifting (as they always do!) and factions try to shift the course in their favor.On a sliding scale, with freedom at one end and security at the other, put me at 89% freedom. There is a role for government, and we debate here in microcosm those responsibilities.Well, aside from a few fringe, hyper-shrill shrieking, Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists in our midst.-CPwv: arcro: what a pirate says when he sees a raven.
So yeah, there may be a fine line between an insane asylum and Meadhouse.And the truth shall set you free!
Exactly. And when I say we both have a habit of thinking or reading out loud, the truth is - many times one of us is reading out loud one of shiloh's insane comments. :-)
Victoria, I agree with much of what you wrote -- certainly the free-market, anti-statist part.I'm not quite sure what you mean by traditionalist. Does one have to live according to traditional values, or just hold these values? Short version: do you consider Gingrich to be a traditionalist?I would agree that the basis of a civilized society is self-control. Equality by itself is too vague. I certainly believe, as I suspect you do, that equality under the law is as much part of the basis of a civilized society. To that I would add respect for civil institutions and the rule of law. Not sure how to quickly define it, but it's the something that helps explain why former British colonies have tended to fare better than, say, former Spanish colonies.As for individualism and the collective, I think I'd have to get some definitions. How do you reconcile your preference for individualism with your preference for traditionalism and hierarchy?I suspect that you and I will split about hierarchies, though this may also depend on definitions and application. I believe in God and the importance of the family, too, but neither strikes me as a particularly conservative position in and of itself.
one of shiloh's insane commentsThere's a very fine line indeed! People who think they no everything, really annoy those of us who know "we" know everything.Again, as long as you're hangin' on my every word like my homies/groupies Fen, edutcher, SM, Alex, shoutingthomas et al.Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results ie die hard internet political posters trying to influence/convince their opposition ...>Again, the ad nauseam question at political blogs:Why does one become a liberal or conservative? As both come in all shapes and sizes.btw my mom, a registered Dem, voted for Nixon in '68 ... I forgave her. ;)and my Dad didn't vote until 1992, when I helped him register and he voted absentee. He was not political, passing away in '93. "We" have no idea who he voted for.>Many blog Reps will tell you they're conservative 'cause they were raised by (2) loving/caring parents who gave them a quality college education ~ yada, yada, yada ...
About time you showed up, Conserve Liberty. All morning, I'd been mumbling one variation of your name or another.
shiloh: sorry to hear about you losing your dad.
Meade thanx :) all my snark comes from my dad who was smarter than the average bear.
Glad to know you came by it honestly.
Iolanthe, Page 7. http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/iolanthe/iollib.pdfQUEEN OF THE FAIRIES. I see your difficulty, but with a fairy brain you should seek an intellectualsphere of action. Let me see. I’ve a borough or two at my disposal. Would you like to go intoParliament?IOLANTHE. A fairy Member! That would be delightful!STREPHON. I’m afraid I should do no good there – you see, down to the waist, I’m a Tory of the most determined description, but my legs are a couple of confounded Radicals, and, on a division, they’d be sure to take me into the wrong lobby. You see, they’re two to one, which is a strong working majority.QUEEN. Don’t let that distress you; you shall be returned as a Liberal-Conservative, and your legs shall be our peculiar care.
Hi Meade,My question is who is overhearing the two of you in conversation. Presumably that was an exchange, a conversation, between you and Althouse - the quotation marks around each statement indicate two people talking. Why use the word "overheard" to describe two people hearing one another in a conversation?
Conserve_Liberty said:I am.Meade said... About time you showed up, Conserve Liberty. All morning, I'd been mumbling one variation of your name or another.I don't think I can label what I am nor classify well what I believe. I take family ancestry seriously because it anchors me and gives me identity. My antecedent landed in Maryland in 1634; another fought with and bought the uniforms for a Revolutionary War regiment.Throughout our family history (and that of my wife) we have believed in independence and self reliance as the price of liberty.George Washington is my hero. I admire Jefferson, although he was impoerfect, so I intentionally went to the University of Virginia. I suppose I am a Jeffersonian Democrat, which led to Lincoln Republican. Yet Lincoln could be called the father of Federalism - which principle has led us to today's political conflict.So I most want to conserve liberty. Label that as you will.
Perhaps I am too focused on closing quotation marks.
MeadhouseHey! Isn't there an 'e' missing from Meade in that portmanteau word? I wondered about others writing it that way.Thanks for the explanation, BTW. :)Cheers,Victoria
Peter Hoh wrote:Does one have to live according to traditional values, or just hold these values?The second, although clearly, both would be ideal.Short version: do you consider Gingrich to be a traditionalist?I'm sure that he is.I found some of the anti-Bristol Palin critique to be an almost textbook case of the differences between liberals and conservatives in this matter.Without meaning to sound harsh, I believe that liberals are stuck on perfectability. We conservatives are not.Perhaps liberals cannot understand, or perhaps more correctly, find it hypocritical when traditionalists slip morally, almost as if they're argument concentrates that if you fail to live up to high moral standards, you shouldn't have any.To that I would add respect for civil institutions and the rule of law. Not sure how to quickly define it, but it's the something that helps explain why former British colonies have tended to fare better than, say, former Spanish colonies.I would agree with you, except that there are many societies who place great emphasis in the rule of law, but are corrupt at heart (I am thinking of many Asian countries).What seems to be crucial in the Anglosphere is accountability.How do you reconcile your preference for individualism with your preference for traditionalism and hierarchy?Tricky, isn't it? Almost impossible to reconcile but for the concept of individual liberties which must be respected, even should they be from boss to subordinate, parent to child, or any inherently unequal relationship.Though I would argue that cohesion is what makes hierarchies work, not collective subordination.I believe in God and the importance of the family, too, but neither strikes me as a particularly conservative position in and of itself.The key for me is traditional family structure, and that is what makes me a social conservative.I've given you a decent guideline to predict which side I will come down on, on any given topic. As a small example: Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry? My response would be 'No'.Cheers,Victoria
Without meaning to sound harsh, I believe that liberals are stuck on perfectability. We conservatives are not.Absurd/inane generalization aside, is this why Larry Craig, Sanford, Vitter, Ensign et al Reps didn't resign.Forgiveness is a virtue, eh.And of course Clinton didn't resign either and now has a high approval rating. Go figure!stuck on perfectability indeed as Reps have amusingly made themselves out to be the party of god/religion the past 30/40 years to the point of incoherent/laughable self-righteousness.take care
Victoria, while I understand the fallacy of demanding perfection from human beings, I do have a problem with those who hold other people to standards to which they do not hold themselves. By your terms, I suppose one could get any number of abortions and still consider herself to be pro-life. That strikes me as a ridiculous position.
visit us on lifeandstylemag.comhttp://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com
Post a Comment