Republicanism and Liberalism

Well the two main theories of the Enlightenment were that of republicanism and liberalism.

I was simply saying, since the US was formed around this time, why would the Republican Party name themselves after an ideology that they at least claim to be contradictive to their own beliefs?

Small government alright. Bush is even managing to outsource the army...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well the two main theories of the Enlightenment were that of republicanism and liberalism.

I was simply saying, since the US was formed around this time, why would the Republican Party name themselves after an ideology that they at least claim to be contradictive to their own beliefs?

---

I think essentially because the Republican party wasn't (of itself) formed of the Enlightenment and Independence.

Both main parties have changed substantially over the years - IIRC, the Democratic Party was originally quite the flagship of slave-owners. Indeed - and more learned colleagues will correct me - I think Jefferson's original party was called the Democratic-Republicans.

The Republican Party came into being and power with the election of Abraham Lincoln - one of its main platforms being the abolition of slavery.

Thanks for that Banquo. So the modern associations each party has are more of a modern phenomenon it would seem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Thanks for that Banquo. So the modern associations each party has are more of a modern phenomenon it would seem?

---

Most parties with a long history have evolved substantially.

Even in the recent decades, one can see seismic changes in the core values of a party. Ronald Reagan created a "large tent" that brought many socially conservative voters into the Republican fold alongside fiscal conservatives. In many ways, it is that unholy alliance (the former believe the government should regulate people's morals, the latter that government is a nuisance in all aspects of life - not an easy paradox to solve) which has been brought to its knees in the recent election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Most parties with a long history have evolved substantially.

Even in the recent decades, one can see seismic changes in the core values of a party. Ronald Reagan created a "large tent" that brought many socially conservative voters into the Republican fold alongside fiscal conservatives. In many ways, it is that unholy alliance (the former believe the government should regulate people's morals, the latter that government is a nuisance in all aspects of life - not an easy paradox to solve) which has been brought to its knees in the recent election.

---

Not all social conservatives believe that the government should regulate peoples morals to an unreasonable extent (beyond not stealing or killing - which I'd bet you think are decent legislated morals). Some just recognize that life begins at conception and that there is an overlap of authority for a 9 month period. 2 lives present when only one is given a hearing of any kind. We want some reasonable safeguards and protections given to the unborn. Our degree of willingness to compromise on this varies from person to person, but I'd bet that you would protest it to if you had the laws we've had.

I'm not arguing that men and women shouldn't be allowed to pierce weird parts of their body or get gender re-assignment surgery - I just don't believe that I should have to pay for that in any way. The termination of human life falls within the governments scope - a government which serves to give a voice to the voiceless.

I don't see how being socially conservative has ever meant that I think that the government should control people. You've swallowed their argument hook line and sinker.

We argue restraint in a radical re-interpretation of law and that lives are protected within reasonable parameters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Not all social conservatives believe that the government should regulate peoples morals to an unreasonable extent (beyond not stealing or killing - which I'd bet you think are decent legislated morals). Some just recognize that life begins at conception and that there is an overlap of authority for a 9 month period. 2 lives present when only one is given a hearing of any kind. We want some reasonable safeguards and protections given to the unborn. Our degree of willingness to compromise on this varies from person to person, but I'd bet that you would protest it to if you had the laws we've had.

I'm not arguing that men and women shouldn't be allowed to pierce weird parts of their body of get gender re-assignment surgery - I just don't believe that I should have to pay for that in any way. The termination of life falls within the governments scope - a government which serves to give a voice to the voiceless.

I don't see how being socially conservative has ever meant that I think that the government should control people. You've swallowed their argument hook line and sinker.

---

Well, I don't want to derail the thread, but if you re-read your post you will see that your position derives from your own belief system. Of course there are many degrees of social conservatism, but in the context of Rhyfelwyr's original enquiry about liberal, enlightenment thought, the imposition of other's religious beliefs by the government is hardly reducing government's role.

Pro-choice is the only position for small government to take - ie the procedure is available to those who choose it. It is then religious people's duty to persuade as many as possible not to make the choice to abort. Persuade, not imprison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Well, I don't want to derail the thread, but if you re-read your post you will see that your position derives from your own belief system. Of course there are many degrees of social conservatism, but in the context of Rhyfelwyr's original enquiry about liberal, enlightenment thought, the imposition of other's religious beliefs by the government is hardly reducing government's role.

Pro-choice is the only position for small government to take - ie the procedure is available to those who choose it. It is then religious people's duty to persuade as many as possible not to make the choice to abort. Persuade, not imprison.

---

Couldn't you argue that domestic violence is acceptable to a small government? You deny that the government has a role in preventing homicides of a certain scale, I don't get it. Just because the Pope says it is wrong it can't be a legitimate secular point? I'm not saying that I oppose birth control.

I don't believe that abortion needs to be a religious issue and I don't believe that it is for many.

Do you believe that the government should regulate seat belts? Or file-sharing? How about taxing the water people use to flush their toilets? How about if they waste food? If they harm animals? Use plastic bags? and on and on. But not same species homicide?

Laws are morality and anyone's push to add their own usually derives from some moral obligation that they have.

The reality is that moral arguments are coming in from all sides, but because we are on the relative right, that must mean that all of our arguments are divinely inspired and ignorant...


(Edit - this is not de-railing the thread - you've said that social conservatives are special because they seek to control everyones morality - I believe that this is a corrupt understanding)

Calm yourself.

Nowhere did I charge social conservatives with being ignorant. Nor that they seek to control everyone's morality.

I simply highlighted the paradox between those who seek limited government and those who seek increased government regulation of morality being in the same camp. I did so in the context of the evolution of party platforms and values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Calm yourself.

Nowhere did I charge social conservatives with being ignorant. Nor that they seek to control everyone's morality.

I simply highlighted the paradox between those who seek limited government and those who seek increased government regulation of morality being in the same camp. I did so in the context of the evolution of party platforms and values.

---

I'm not seething.

I thought that the point of your "unholy alliance" statement was to suggest that Social Conservatives are big government, big brother conservatives - inherently at odds with fiscal conservatives.

I believe that there is a sensible hands-off brand of domestic social conservatism. If you don't believe that it exists, ask Ron Paul.

Protecting the unborn is a very different point than restricting a woman's right to choose things for herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well said. What happened to the conservative idea of the welfare state?

Well I suppose the new right is what happened, but I don't understand why social conservatism cannot coincide with somewhat socialist economic principles.

---

Quite right. Conservatism itself means restraint: restraint of the excesses of personal irresponsibility as well as restraint of the excesses of the market. One Nation Conservatism used to be the main brand of conservatism, but sadly since the days of Mrs Thatcher, this is no longer the case (what can one expect from the daughter of a Whig?). The primary purpose of government should be to make a country strong, a country of which its citizens can be proud. There are certain things which a government must provide for the good of the social fabric of a country: a strong sense of law and order, wide-reaching infrastructure such as post offices and railways (Britain's rail network is now the joke of the Western world, and rightly so), a decent health service and education system, a well-funded military and state pensions which ensure a decent standard of living.
Mrs Thatcher's legacy of social division, of "Us and Them", of an obsession with "making things pay for themselves" as the be-all and end-all of their purpose has left Britain sadly weakened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Quite right. Conservatism itself means restraint: restraint of the excesses of personal irresponsibility as well as restraint of the excesses of the market. One Nation Conservatism used to be the main brand of conservatism, but sadly since the days of Mrs Thatcher, this is no longer the case (what can one expect from the daughter of a Whig?). The primary purpose of government should be to make a country strong, a country of which its citizens can be proud. There are certain things which a government must provide for the good of the social fabric of a country: a strong sense of law and order, wide-reaching infrastructure such as post offices and railways (Britain's rail network is now the joke of the Western world, and rightly so), a decent health service and education system, a well-funded military and state pensions which ensure a decent standard of living.
Mrs Thatcher's legacy of social division, of "Us and Them", of an obsession with "making things pay for themselves" as the be-all and end-all of their purpose has left Britain sadly weakened.

---

I have never so wholeheartedly agreed with the sentiment of a post in the Backroom for a long, long time. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Not all social conservatives believe that the government should regulate peoples morals to an unreasonable extent (beyond not stealing or killing - which I'd bet you think are decent legislated morals). Some just recognize that life begins at conception and that there is an overlap of authority for a 9 month period. 2 lives present when only one is given a hearing of any kind. We want some reasonable safeguards and protections given to the unborn. Our degree of willingness to compromise on this varies from person to person, but I'd bet that you would protest it to if you had the laws we've had.

I'm not arguing that men and women shouldn't be allowed to pierce weird parts of their body or get gender re-assignment surgery - I just don't believe that I should have to pay for that in any way. The termination of human life falls within the governments scope - a government which serves to give a voice to the voiceless.

I don't see how being socially conservative has ever meant that I think that the government should control people. You've swallowed their argument hook line and sinker.

We argue restraint in a radical re-interpretation of law and that lives are protected within reasonable parameters.

---

Agreed, I have nothing in common with social conservatives who want to ban books. As a side note, Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton were the most prominent pushers of "parental advisory" stickers on music and later ratings on video games and TV shows.

Honestly there are many issues that appear partisan in the American context, yet the issues have no relationship to each other. For example, gun control and taxes. If the parties were shaken up and reorganized, we could have parties with very different platforms than the democrats and republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton were the most prominent pushers of "parental advisory" stickers on music and later ratings on video games and TV shows.

---

Don't forget Joe Lieberman; he was all over that action. Very keen to censor video games as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

The people? The people? My dear fellow, surely you can't trust people, ordinary people, to do what they really want? The people doesn't know what it wants. Of course, they think they know what they want. A new shiny car, crummy plops for breakfast, dolphin-friendly potatos. But these are just things that they've been told that they need by however wants to make some dosh. How can they know what they want? Ask the average man in the street who, say, Aristotle, was, and they'd probably answer that it was the name of the man who ran the local kebab shop. Placing your faith in such people is like trusting children to properly run a sweet factory. Therein lies madness, my friend.

---

Hmmm.... Are we seeing another fascist friend in the backroom, here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

No, the green party will replace the government with a nice shrubbery. One not too tall.

---

With a little path running between?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hmmm.... Are we seeing another fascist friend in the backroom, here?

---

So Winston Churchill was a fascist by your definition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hmmm.... Are we seeing another fascist friend in the backroom, here?

---

Oh no, fascism is for people who feel insecure about their lack of height. I believe in freedom of speech and all that malarkey. I think of myself as more of a paternalist democrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I have never so wholeheartedly agreed with the sentiment of a post in the Backroom for a long, long time.

---

The Backroom: where people get along. Sometimes.~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

1 - Rousseau is a proto-communist
2 - Rousseau agreed with the domination of a minority over the majority.
3 - the US republican party is somehow linked to traditional "republicanism" (is that a word btw ?)

---

IIRC Rousseau wanted an egalitarian society, but not comprehensive distribution of property.

Rousseau never said or wrote that it would be acceptable for a minority to dominate a majority. He did argue though that the Common Will is something different from the sum of petty desires of all people in a country, that the "will" of a citizen is something different from the will of a person as such. From there it's just a short step to conclude that people will need sheppards to determin what the people want and need, and assume limitless authority under the guise of the Common Will.
He also thought that real democracy was only possible in miniature states like Switzerland and that the ability to make political decisions could not be delegated to a body smaller than the people, but this is usually ommitted by his "fans" in order to make a case for their own political views.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

By this definition I think both parties qualify.

I favor the rights of the individual at the expense of government. I think that a strict interpretation of the Construction is best and puts a limit on government interference.

Neither American Political Party will do more than play lip service to the rights of the individual. I am not in favor of unrestrained capitalism, however, as that also has an effect on the rights of every individual and I do not believe that corporations should be treated as individuals under the law, but be regulated by the states or governments that they operate under.

I can not reconcile these views with either party. One says it favors small government and individual rights while passing the Patriot Act. The other has advocated a Living Constitution (what in essence means that the constitution means what ever is most convenient to the government)

The Elite of both Parties place the interests of special interest groups and their own personal power above that of the people and may actually believe that they know better than the people what they need.

I find it difficult to understand why most people would affiliate themselves with either party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.

By this definition I think both parties qualify.

---

Teddybear is a bear that leads individuals on to believe it is all cute and cuddly. However, a closer inpection usually reveals they are not a bear at all. Just the fake promise of.

By this definition I think both parties qualify. Like teddybears, none of their sweet promises ever turn out to be true. It is all falsehoods and deceit.

Fascism and teddybears, that's what US politics is all about. :smash:

Oh god any bucket would do just mob me up :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

So Winston Churchill was a fascist by your definition?

---

I place him in the "upper class brat" category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I place him in the "upper class brat" category.

---

I know what you mean, I would not be happy having him as my MP, the people of Dundee weren't anyway.

However, you have to accept that he helped save the world from Nazism. At least give him credit for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hmmm.... Are we seeing another fascist friend in the backroom, here?

---

i would have said that "authoritarian" would be a better description of the sentiment above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

However, you have to accept that he helped save the world from Nazism. At least give him credit for that.

---

So did a lot of people I don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

i would have said that "authoritarian" would be a better description of the sentiment above.

---

Yes, well... Pot-hay-to, potato....:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So did a lot of people I don't like.

---

Without mass-murdering his own people... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Without mass-murdering his own people... :rolleyes:

---

Lots of people who stopped the nazi's are people I don't like. And plenty of them didn't commit genocide.

I don't know how much you could say 'churchill saved us from the nazis', would we have really crumbled to defeat under neville chamberlain ?

The 2 main things about winston was he was warning us about what was going to happen, which doesn't matter because we were already at war by the time he came in, and his insipirational speech's, which im sure helped alot but i don't think that singlehandedly kept the british from giving in...

Although i haven't heard of it i suppose winston could have could have brought a change of direction about in the war effort... ?

Quote:

---

The 2 main things about winston was he was warning us about what was going to happen, which doesn't matter because we were already at war by the time he came in, and his insipirational speech's, which im sure helped alot but i don't think that singlehandedly kept the british from giving in...

---

Chamerlain or someone like him would most likely have decided to accept Hitler's peace offer and stood idly by while the Germans and Soviets fought for complete control of Europe. There were other people in Churchills cabinet who also opposed caving in to the nazis, but it's the Prime Minister that counts above all.

Hmm, im not so sure, i have always felt chamberlain was made out to be far worse than he actually was, peace in our time was what everyone wanted, and so he delivered it, after the outbreak of war i assumed it would have been more strongly (in general population and political circles) felt that peace in our time was not possible and chamberlain would have seen this... the putting of winston into pm position shows the war mindset britian and parliment had got in to...

I have seen theorys that suggest peace in our time was a play for time, as at this point the uk economy was already gearing up for the war, i don't think chamberlain is the avoid war at all costs type of character he's made out to be...