It's impossible to be completely conservative or completely liberal all the time.

It's also impossible to be an anarchist without some sort of rules to be an anarchist. It's kind of funny how anarchists meet- and then the point of being an anarchist-- goes away once they're organized.

I'm liberal leaning but only to an extent. Someone who is completely liberal would allow everything-- to murder, to holocausts, to cross burnings, to everything-- because by definition a liberal means that you allow personal freedoms, you're not so heavy on economic ones. Given the extreme of the liberal ideology-- where you allow murder and all of these haneous acts (I'm not talking about abortion here-- just-- a truly liberal person would be like a psychotic killer who smokes weed and who is a complete control freak)-- it is impossible to be completely liberal-- unless you're Stalin which I assume that most of you aren't. A truly liberal person would ban all types of religion and would ban all weapons so no one would be able to fight against them and the like. A truly liberal person would want to control all aspects of the economy and end free market enterprises as we know it. A true liberal, however, would want social justice, and would want everyone to truly be equal and a true liberal would try to make it that way with control of the economy and government. It doesn't always work out that way.

Now to be fair, it's also impossible to be a complete conservative. Someone who is completely conservative would believe in racism-- would believe in slaughtering other people who they don't agree with-- would agree in forming a Christian and Arab Taliban like religious group that ruled the world. A complete conservative would allow NO government intervention on anything or with any intervention with the economy. If a company failed it would fail-- no help from the government. The true conservative would be bashing gays, would be bashing people who he or she is intolerant of, and, the true conservative would be bashing people for their ethnicity. All of the kinds of things liberals despise of would a true conservative be. Conservatives would want to get rid of the separation of church and state and bring prayer in school. A completely conservative person would want nothing but his or her own race in power. A completely conservative person in power would become corrupt by all the power at their disposal, would lose control, and, then go AWOL.


Thus, I conclude, that it's impossible to either be completely liberal or conservatives. They're both too extreme in my book. I feel happy to have views from both sides.

Sure doesn't stop some from trying.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Wow, I always considered myself a conservative but don't support any type of religion being financed by the state. Nor do I believe pastors should be allowed into political positions.

I think the idea behind conservatism is that you conserve, especially conserve money. That is why we call Bush a neocon and not a conservative.

Also, I don't think of conservatives as being the slightest bit racist. We are geographist in that we don't want a flood of immigrants from Mexico but that is based on the ideas of finance and economy not on racism.

PS - Maybe I just wrongly believe I am conservative.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by truthquest]

There is a fatal flaw with this thread, which I will now share with you.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea what defines a true Conservative. None at all.

Your examples of what "true" conservatives OR liberals would be doing is ridiculous.

I have to agree with NYK. Going by the thread title I was about to admit that although I am a conservative, I do hold a few liberal opinions or at the very least a 'middle of the road' stance on some issues. However, after reading the thread, I believe you seriously misunderstand what conservatism and liberalism entails.

[edit on 1/29/2009 by AshleyD]

Without getting stuck in the definitions of these 'teams', I think I agree with your basic point... assuming I'm getting it.

ALL of these groupings... conservative, liberal, Catholic, Presbyterian, Christian, Muslim, anarchist, libertarian, etc ad naseum are at best approximations of how a complex person might identify themself.

They are actually little more than convenient boxes people can use to avoid thinking in detail about the reality of what is going on in real life around them.

This is not necessarily a comment on those who identify themselves using one of these box labels, but perhaps more a comment on the culture we as humans have evolved. Groupthink, basically.

To truly reflect on reality, and dig below the sound bytes, puts one in the position of having to face a continuing stream of contradictions and mutually incompatible choices. Easier to just say

"I'm a liberal. Guns bad."

or

"I'm a conservative. Abortion bad."


[edit on 29-1-2009 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


That's exactly my point.

Liberalism and conservatism are two dogmas people can subscribe to so they can have an excuse to not think critically about politics.

I've noticed a lot of partisanship. What is partisanship? It's one view. People who have one view or the opposite view on everything are narrow minded.

Then, people say they don't want to have different points of views because they don't feel that they can agree with the other side. They don't want to be moderate in anything because they feel if they're moderate they're backing down.

I think selecting an ideology to describe your views is merely just a cop out.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Saying that I'm a conservative does not mean I'm completely opposed to any thoughts and ideas that aren't themselves conservative.

I have an open mind to any idea that will better this country, whether it's a "conservative" idea or not. I define myself as a conservative because the majority of my core beliefs fall in line with what true conservatism stands for.

Again, the only thing you are proving with this thread is your complete lack of understanding.

reply to post by nyk537


I think you're the one that has a lack of understanding. People who select their own ideology are hypocrites. Why? They base their policies on their view assuming it works and then they go against the will of the American people with harmful foreign and domestic policies that moves us more backwards than before. It would be nice if people said and did what they actually believed in for a change. That's why I say it's not good to select an ideology. It makes you look like a hypocrite. The ideology may work on paper. But in reality it just is a blueprint for the elite ruling class to create their policies, and in turn, because the ideologies are opposite of each other, they tend to oppose each other so much that they can't get much of anything done. It's better to be pragmatic than to be ideologically based.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
People who select their own ideology are hypocrites.

As opposed to letting others select it for them?

I've always found that people who think for themselves are indeed hypocrites.

They base their policies on their view assuming it works and then they go against the will of the American people with harmful foreign and domestic policies that moves us more backwards than before.

What??

Why wouldn't someone want to implement specific strategies that they think will help the American people?

Is your "non-ideological" plan somehow much better and less harmful than anyone elses?

Don't flatter yourself.

It would be nice if people said and did what they actually believed in for a change.

Wait.

Didn't you just say that was hypocritical?

That's why I say it's not good to select an ideology. It makes you look like a hypocrite.

As opposed to claiming that you subscribe to no ideology, but then turning around and supporting ideas that could easily fall into either category?

Nothing hypocritical about that is there?

The ideology may work on paper. But in reality it just is a blueprint for the elite ruling class to create their policies

Right.

So when someone who doesn't consider themselves a part of any one ideology gets in power they won't be considered the "elite ruling class"?

It's better to be pragmatic than to be ideologically based.

Wrong.

It's impossible to not subscribe to any ideology, because you have to have some core beliefs.

Claiming to not be ideologically based is simply an excuse to not have to stand up for anything.

That my friend is the real cop out.

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
People who select their own ideology are hypocrites.

As opposed to letting others select it for them?

I've always found that people who think for themselves are indeed hypocrites.

So you have something against critical thinkers? No wonder our country is in the state that it's in...

They base their policies on their view assuming it works and then they go against the will of the American people with harmful foreign and domestic policies that moves us more backwards than before.

What??

Why wouldn't someone want to implement specific strategies that they think will help the American people?
The problem is that people seem to think that ideologies are the best ways to implement the change they want. They lack originality and they can't think of any political solutions to real problems themselves. So, they end up in circular arguments with the left and the right, because of their ideology, their mind is fixed on a few ideas, and they can't think independently because they have to rely on an ideology to help them.

Is your "non-ideological" plan somehow much better and less harmful than anyone elses?

Don't flatter yourself.

My non ideological plan would include helping the majority of the country without governing from the center. Under my non ideological world both conservatives and liberals would be satisfied from a government that actually did what it's supposed to, and, actually came up with coherent plans on how to fix problems.

It would be nice if people said and did what they actually believed in for a change.

Wait.

Didn't you just say that was hypocritical?
What I mean, is that politicians who use ideologies are hypocrites especially, because they choose an ideology and then abandon its principles. If they're going to do it at least do what they say they're going to do.

That's why I say it's not good to select an ideology. It makes you look like a hypocrite.

As opposed to claiming that you subscribe to no ideology, but then turning around and supporting ideas that could easily fall into either category?

Nothing hypocritical about that is there?
Not really. I tend to use all sorts of ideologies to help shape my thinking. Socialism, capitalism, radicalism, nationalism, patriotism, etc... there is nothing wrong with using more than one ideology. My problem is with the people that only use one ideology. This goes for the left and the right.

The ideology may work on paper. But in reality it just is a blueprint for the elite ruling class to create their policies

Right.

So when someone who doesn't consider themselves a part of any one ideology gets in power they won't be considered the "elite ruling class"?
They're still part of the ruling elite unless they prove otherwise. But, my problem is that the ruling elite uses ideologies to manipulate the masses. Just look at this election and you'll have seen how many people were manipulated by the promises of liberalism and conservatism. I think an pragmatic approach using the best of both ideologies and others would be helpful and more beneficial to the country.

It's better to be pragmatic than to be ideologically based.

Wrong.

It's impossible to not subscribe to any ideology, because you have to have some core beliefs.
That's not true. I have several liberal and conservative beliefs and I don't consider myself a moderate. I have core beliefs from both ideologies. What's wrong with that?

Claiming to not be ideologically based is simply an excuse to not have to stand up for anything.

That my friend is the real cop out.

Wrong. Not having any ideology means that you don't buy into the partisan politics that happen today. I just stand up for what is right. If conservatism is right then I stand up for that ideology. If liberalism is right then I stand up for that. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
So you have something against critical thinkers? No wonder our country is in the state that it's in...

No my friend...that is what we call sarcasm.

I guess the rolling eyes weren't obvious enough for you.

The problem is that people seem to think that ideologies are the best ways to implement the change they want.

Again, you're just plain confused.

An ideology is not way to implement anything. It's a way to come up with things to implement.

because of their ideology, their mind is fixed on a few ideas, and they can't think independently because they have to rely on an ideology to help them.

Oy.

An ideology is not a concrete thing that states you have to stick to these certain rules or else. It's simply a classification for a group of people who share the same beliefs.

I'm not sure how you aren't getting this.

Under my non ideological world both conservatives and liberals would be satisfied from a government that actually did what it's supposed to

My friend, ideologies are not what prevents government from doing what it's supposed to.

Government prevents itself from doing what it's supposed to.

Not having an ideology wouldn't change that.

because they choose an ideology and then abandon its principles.

Not all of them.

So somehow you are suggesting that a non-ideological government would somehow be superior because they would have no principles to abandon?

I fail to see how not having any principles to stand by could be a good thing.

In fact, it's about the most spineless thing a person could do.

My problem is with the people that only use one ideology. This goes for the left and the right.

Right, because having conflicting principles and beliefs makes it much easier to make clear, rational decisions.

That's not true. I have several liberal and conservative beliefs and I don't consider myself a moderate. I have core beliefs from both ideologies. What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing.

I'm not the one who has a problem with ideologies.

You are.

If conservatism is right then I stand up for that ideology. If liberalism is right then I stand up for that.

So does everyone else.

Nobody is so blindly loyal that they won't listen to good ideas.

Do you think your special or something?

Originally posted by nyk537
]Originally posted by Frankidealist35
So you have something against critical thinkers? No wonder our country is in the state that it's in...

No my friend...that is what we call sarcasm.

I guess the rolling eyes weren't obvious enough for you.

K, fine.

Again, you're just plain confused.

An ideology is not way to implement anything. It's a way to come up with things to implement.

That's my problem with it. That they rely on an ideology as if they think it's the best way to solve the problem. IDEOLOGIES CREATES DIVISIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE.

Oy.

An ideology is not a concrete thing that states you have to stick to these certain rules or else. It's simply a classification for a group of people who share the same beliefs.

That's the problem with it. Too many people have the same beliefs. I may fall under the category of a liberal under a test but in reality I have liberal values, conservative values, and libertarian values. So, to categorize people is meaningless. Also, lots of people have similar views to each other because they haven't been exposed to other views. So, exposing them to other views might change their ideology.

I'm not sure how you aren't getting this.

It's the problem with the label.

My friend, ideologies are not what prevents government from doing what it's supposed to.

Government prevents itself from doing what it's supposed to.

Not having an ideology wouldn't change that.

No, but ideologies help them to do what they're not supposed to do.

because they choose an ideology and then abandon its principles.

Not all of them.
A lot of them do though.

So somehow you are suggesting that a non-ideological government would somehow be superior because they would have no principles to abandon?

I fail to see how not having any principles to stand by could be a good thing.

I think you misunderstand. A non-ideological government in my view would take the best interests from both conservatives and liberals and make them a reality. They would take both core interests from both groups and improve the quality of life for all its people.

In fact, it's about the most spineless thing a person could do.

I think the most spineless thing a person would do would be to assume they fall under an ideology and to assume the other side is evil, hence, what happens in a lot of politics today.

Right, because having conflicting principles and beliefs makes it much easier to make clear, rational decisions.

That's the problem. These people are only expressed to certain views and for some reason they act like the people who don't believe them is evil (religion, atheism, abortion, etc).

That's not true. I have several liberal and conservative beliefs and I don't consider myself a moderate. I have core beliefs from both ideologies. What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing.

I'm not the one who has a problem with ideologies.

You are.
For good reasons.

So does everyone else.

Nobody is so blindly loyal that they won't listen to good ideas.

Do you think your special or something?

You'd be really surprised at how partisan people can get.