Liberal vs. Conservative (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, October 13, 2009, 19:19 (5519 days ago) @ xeno6696

Two different mind-sets are present in Liberals and Conservatives. It is the latter who question Darwin, Global Warming, and express other non-mainstream views. I know this difference colors the discussion here. 
> > 
> > I started as a young New Yorker and very liberal. Later very conservative and followed the famous line: if you are not liberal at 20 you have no heart, if not conservative at 40, you have no brain. I know Churchill used this statement, but it goes back before him. Lord Chesterton, perhaps? The following link is like my story, and I am mostly a libertarian at this juncture, one who understands and appreciates the needs for minimal societal rules. In this case the discussion represents how liberal the education establishment is in this country. 
> > 
> > http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/swimming_upstream_the_life_of.html
&... 
> I'm flatly "middle of the road." Social conservatism is something I hate with a passion, because of fact that it wants to use the government to push cultural and social norms. 
> 
> Fiscal conservatism is flatly right, but complete Laissez-faire cannot solve all societal problems. (If a business must manage people, who manages the businesses?)
> 
> 
> Individual liberty should be maximized. -
I don't know how you define 'social conservatism'. Looking at your responses I'd say you are leaning well to the conservative side. True conservatives such as Buckley, Podoretz, Irving Crystal, don't push norms. You are thinking of fundamentalist Christians. I think abortion is fine, and an individual decision.
The FC's want to remake the law of the land.-> While I have no issue with what causes the basic mentality behind modern liberal thought (people need help) I'm more apt to stick to the "tough-love" mentality of "Teach a man to fish." -I agree and raised my kids that way. Too much help and control weakens the personality and spirit.--> 
> Libertarian is something I can (almost) support. I disagree with the party's idea of eliminating the Dept. of Education. Standards mean nothing without a body to enforce them. Plus, someone needs to dictate what the national policy is; we need scientists, engineers, and teachers, right? However, left to market forces we will continue to have a glut, because basic research = government research. (There's no marketability of gluon and hadron research, for example.) -I want the Dept. of Ed. to disappear. There are too many gov't mandates, too many non-deserving getting school lunches., and all sorrts of other odd-ball demands, always unfunded by congress. Bussing kids to hell-and-gone for diversity and more equal education has actually not been successful, and simply created white flight. Education was always under local control 'til recently. One of my med partners was a Houston school board member. If you had his insights, you'd agree with me, and he was a confirmed liberal. As for dictating national policy to create specific occupations, no one told me to go to medical school when i was in high school. It won't work at that level, but college and grad school scholarships will work. The WWII GI bill proved that.
>
> I'm more conservative than I would have thought I was 10 years ago, but again; market forces cannot solve all problems. -You are following the usual path for folks in America.