Alan Not a bad suggestion, but I'm not sure if it's in our power to "avoid bringing about another Darfur in Iraq", any more than I'm sure if it matters that the surge is working. The political reality on the ground in Iraq seems to be key, and beyond our ability to control. Our military seems very close to the breaking point and I'm concerned that a looming catastrophe (kind of like what happened in the mid-70's) will be upon us unless we start reducing deployments.

Dave, meet under the bus. Under the bus…meet Dave.

Mabye I'm slow, but I dont' get it.

C Stanley Alan, I think Kevin's referring to the place that Dave is about to be thrown by other liberal/progressive bloggers. He's being far too reasonable and thoughtful and straying from "the narrative".

Kevin Even pro-withdrawal Democrats, like Sen. Webb for example, have acknowledged that we are bringing certain regions under control. This control would certainly not be in places like Baquba were we to depart. Your question about a political stability is well taken, however I feel it's terribly unfair after decades of tyranny, and over four years of war, to ask a shell-shocked population to jump into governance and democracy. It took many years in places like S. Korea, and as many have been quick to remind me, they didn't have quite the insurgency problem there that we are witnessing currently in Iraq. Under the bus-- ya know, "Wow, his teammates really threw him under the bus on that one!" Sorry for being obscure.

C Stanley Agreed, Michael, but at least he didn't do what a lot of liberal bloggers do; a lot of them would have condemned the GOP for ideologically driven viewpoints and policies and then in the same breath, proposed their own ideologically driven viewpoints and policies. He was at least starting with the criticism but then trying to hold his guys to the same standard that he thinks he applies correctly to the other side.

Alan It might be terribly unfair but I'm not sure there are any other options (at least I didn't trot out the old "Life isn't fair" argument).

All in all, liberals want to reshape society.

How terrible! ;) If so, it's only because they see the problems with the present society. Conservatives seem to think that society is so delicate than any change will collapse the whole thing. Now if you'll pardon me, I have to look for my bus schedule... :)

Michael van der Galiën Agreed Christine. I have a quote coming up tomorrow Alan. We conservatives do not think that at all.

phin [blockquote]All in all, liberals want to reshape society.[/blockquote] More than that, I think they want to completely change and/or socially engineer human nature...for our own good and/or the "greater good"(whatever *that* means), bien sure. And the blinded by ideology and preconceptions is kinda funny. Everyone is, to an extent, blinded by ideology and preconceptions. Those who always believe, for whatever reason, that they're not are masterfully self-delusional. And doesn't the way you *see* things the way they ostensibly *are* not depend on ones own perspective which is partly shaped by ideology, misconceptions, etc? Oh well... [blockquote]But we have to look at where things are today, and figure out how to make the world better starting today.[/blockquote] Why does he believe that it is their responsibility to make the world "better"? Isn't that the kind of thinking that, partly, led Bush into Iraq and thus gave genesis (according to liberals) to the "terrible terrible mess in the Middle East"?

Alan

I have a quote coming up tomorrow Alan. We conservatives do not think that at all.

I'll reserve judgment until then.

Alan A quote from E.J Dionne's book Why Americans Hate Politics: "For liberals, the gravest sins are intolerance, a lack of generosity towards the needy, narrow-mindedness toward social and racial minorities." Which IMHO describes liberals pretty well. What you and Phin are describing is utopianism, something that can be characterisitic of the Left but isn't an essential element. It can just as easily be found on the Right. In fact, that is how I tend to see social conservatives (economic conservatives are a different story); wanting to re-engineer society so as to return to the 1950s, with subordinate roles for women, no roles for homosexuals, strict moral codes, and no "alternative lifestyles" of any sort. Of course, I can't see how that would even be possible, but perhaps social conservatives have an extreme optimism as well.

C Stanley Alan: what you are describing there though is how social conservatives have abandoned the real ideas of conservatism. Authentic conservatism doesn't believe in legislating values or individual behavior except when that behavior specifically infringes on the rights of others (your rights stop at the tip of my nose). It's also a description of the arguments between those who advocate "big government" vs. "small government" and the fact that this is one axis of political opinion but it's not the only one. And, I'd say that the axis is more circular than linear because generally when you get to either extreme, the folks that inhabit those extremities tend to be more similar to each other in their desire to have the government implement their preferred vision of society. In other words, the far right circles around to become a lot more like the far left (or vice versa). Generally I think of these people as unthinking utopianists (is that a word?) They know what they want society to be like but they really haven't thought through the implications of trying to enforce that vision through the government. What Michael and Phin are saying is that real conservatives aren't ideologues at all (Michael had a good videoclip of W. F. Buckley discussing this a while back- could probably find it in the archives). I had never even realized this, but the real definition of ideology encompasses a view of utopia and/or societal engineering, which is an anathema to conservatism. The more common modern definition of ideology is a rigid adherence to a particular philosophy, so I had previously thought that conservatives could also be ideologues, but actually it's not so.

Alan

.Alan: what you are describing there though is how social conservatives have abandoned the real ideas of conservatism.

Are you sure that this isn't conservativism? What I got from Dionne's book was that since the 50's conservativism has been exemplified by William F. Buckley's "fusionist" doctrine: Using government to promote conservative values through the least intrusive means. (It was a compromise between social conservatives and libertarians, who had rather different goals) And another thing: IMHO people around here seem to define "conservative" in a way that sounds an awful lot like a libertarian. What's the difference between the two? (I think Michael tried to explain it to me once, but I didn't get it)

C Stanley OK, I'm not a political scientist so the following is only my layman's perspective. If someone more knowledgeable sees a need to correct me, feel free to jump in. Libertarians are the small government type of conservative. To them, the overarching goal is to minimize government's intrusion into private lives. So, they wish to minimize govt interference in both social and economic spheres. Minimal social regulation as well as minimal business/corporate regulation. Social conservatives (using the term more broadly here than I did before; in my previous comment I was referring to the social conservatives that are aka 'the religious right'; there are also moderate social conservatives who don't go as far as the RR does) generally don't want "big government" either (or at least many will say that they don't). But this isn't the primary importance to them; instead, a different factor that defines conservatism is of utmost importance: the preservation of traditional societal structures. You can be both, as long as you aren't too extreme in either viewpoint. An extreme libertarian would be at odds with all social conservatives and would favor liberal policies toward marriage, homosexuality, abortion, etc. A moderate libertarian would see some value in some social legislation as long as it didn't go too far and as long as the regulation of behaviors was for a well defined societal need (not a frivolous desire to control other people's behavior, and certainly not an attempt to legislate a religiously motivated value system). An extreme social conservative would be at odds with libertarians because to him, the need to control behaviors that undermine societal traditions would trump the need to keep the government out of personal lives. A moderate social conservative would try to balance the two needs; seeing some reason for legislation but always wanting to ensure that the govt isn't given too much authority over personal lives. Again, this type of person would only want to legislate on social issues when there is some overriding need to do so. I put myself in that moderate camp for both- for example, I favor gay civil unions (with protections for the rights of churches to determine their own decisions on marrying or not marrying) because that addresses the need for equal treatment under the law without forcing people to accept that homosexuality should be accepted by society as equivalent to relationships between man and woman. Another example is abortion; I'm pro life because if one believes that the human fetus is a separate human being, then you have to determine that that being has some rights which must be protected (and the most basic of all rights is right to life). But I don't wish for the govt to pass laws which would punish homosexuals, nor to allow discrimination under the law. Anyway: the intersection of the moderate libertarian and moderate social conservative viewpoints has historically been the center of gravity of the GOP but recent trends pushed it much farther toward social conservatism. It remains to be seen how the tension between the two groups will be resolved in the future. There are some liberal libertarians who are wondering if the Democratic party better fits their beliefs, but on the whole most libertarians think that the Democratic party is still the party that advocates more govt based solutions. I think if the Dems were to look more toward promoting societal change without govt intervention (or without direct govt intervention- for example, govt supporting and encouraging private sector solutions, nonprofits, etc), then libertarians would flock there- but I don't foresee that happening. Again, the libertarians prime concern is liberty- the freedom from government intrusion.

Alan Good definitions. Of course, I guess the real question is how far is "going too far". But that's true of any political division. And whether the basic aims are correct (also true of any political division). As someone who questions the value of traditional structures (to a degree) I guess that puts me squarely in the liberal camp

C Stanley Alan, I'm in the conservative camp, of course, but specifically for this reason: even where traditional structures fail, you still need a support structure so you can't just yank out the beams without replacing them with something else. I've rarely seen liberals who seem to grasp that; instead they either believe that society doesn't need institutional structures or they believe the government can substitute for them. Conservatives tend to see the need for societal change to come somewhat gradually (more on that point in a minute) and to grow organically from within society, not to be imposed from the top down. Now, on the gradual vs. sudden change, I've heard some people argue that social conservatives now are calling for sudden change; for example, I heard one person stating that conservatives should want Roe v. Wade to stand because a reversal would mean a sudden change. Here you get into a distinction between conservatism that always wants to preserve the current status quo (which is what those people are arguing) vs. conservatism that wants to return to a prior status quo (one which usually stood its ground for quite some time). That kind of touches on what you said earlier, that social conservatives want to return to the 1950s. I'd argue that this is rarely the case; most social conservatives are happy that women now have equal opportunities, but we wish to return to a time when the family structure was given more value so that women could choose to stay home to raise children without feeling that they were making a lesser choice than a career woman. In all things, the focus should be on preserving what was good about the past while also admitting change to occur when needed. Too often instead we throw out the baby with the bathwater (or send the baby to daycare, as the case may be in the example I chose).

Alan

I’ve rarely seen liberals who seem to grasp that; instead they either believe that society doesn’t need institutional structures or they believe the government can substitute for them.

I'm not sure most liberals (including myself) are so radical that they don't believe in societal structures. But then my definition of "liberal" is fairly broad and moderate

In all things, the focus should be on preserving what was good about the past while also admitting change to occur when needed

I agree about keeping what is good. But I've seen a pretty consistent trend of social conservatives disapproving of change, regardless of what type and what degree. Perhaps this is why those associated with the status quo (whites, men, Christians) tend to support Republicans, while those who aren't (women, minorities, gays, etc.) tend to support Democrats; if you're doing well you don't want things to change, while if things aren't going so good you do. And I want things to change. ;)

Alan And where is everyone else? I can understand being the only liberal in this debate, but surely Christine can get some support from the rest of you.

C Stanley Alan: I agree that most liberals aren't so radical and I didn't mean to make what might be considered a strawman argument. All I'm trying to say is that from my viewpoint, I don't see the idea of the importance of tradition and societal institutions given enough consideration by most liberals, even the moderate ones. In a way, my view on that might mirror yours about how conservatives seem to you to resist ALL change, instead of just resisting abrupt or excessive change. I think discussing it like this is good because people on each side need to better understand the concern of those on the other sides. I always find it a bit funny when people make the argument you are making about people's status though- since I'm female and was definitely not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. My family struggled, but all 4 kids managed to graduate from college and we are definitely better off than the previous generation. So in that sense, my personal situation was partly formative for my political beliefs because the system worked to allow us the opportunities to get ahead; we're proof that the American dream is still alive and well and has little to do with lofty ideas like the Great Society. It was much more about believing in ourselves and working very, very hard. I do grant you though that there are people who are marginalized by societal traditions and I'm not the type of conservative who pretends that isn't so. I just think it's way too much of an overgeneralization to think that women, minorities and others would automatically better fit in the Democratic party than the GOP.

phin

A moderate libertarian would see some value in some social legislation as long as it didn’t go too far and as long as the regulation of behaviors was for a well defined societal need (not a frivolous desire to control other people’s behavior, and certainly not an attempt to legislate a religiously motivated value system).

and

A moderate social conservative would try to balance the two needs; seeing some reason for legislation but always wanting to ensure that the govt isn’t given too much authority over personal lives. Again, this type of person would only want to legislate on social issues when there is some overriding need to do so.

That's where I am too, or rather what I evolved into from a much more liberal POV earlier on. Bear in mind that I have spent most of my life living in Quebec, which is about as European as you can get from a North American perspective. So I've seen all the "wonders" of the craddle-to-grave welfare system and big government in action up close and personal. Here's where it's heading: bankruptcy, in almost every way.

For liberals, the gravest sins are intolerance, a lack of generosity towards the needy, narrow-mindedness toward social and racial minorities.

Again, social engineering. So what, you should legislate or force people how to behave, to act according to what you *think* is "appropriate" behavior at this particular point in time? How are you any different from the religious lunatics on the extreme fringes? As they say, "the end justifies the means", so long as we get to your desired destination about what human society should or should not be. You don't think that is not some kind of utopian fantasy? People and especially government should have no business telling other people how to behave and/or act, so long as that behavior does not infringe on the basic rights of another human being. And I'm not talking about being offended or having hurt feelings. I'm talking about actual physical threat to another person.

Alan It is a generalization, and probably too broad a one at that. Political party identification is more complicated than that. I'll admit that one of the reason I identify with the Dems is because my family has always been Democratic. But another reason is that I've always been a bit of an outsider---My friends (also Dems) were the "nerds" in school; I'm happily single when most of my peers are married; and I'm becoming a nurse, a profession seen as a "woman's job". I've always tended to see the Republicans as kind of representing the mainstream, while the Democrats seem more appropriate for people more on the fringe (especially since they became associated with the counterculture in the 60's) I don't think this is unique; I saw a recent interview with Markos Mousalitas recently (YearlyKos was in Chicago this year) and he said he started DailyKos as therapy to deal with being an immigrant who didn't really fit in. Not that I'm saying that everyone who doesn't conform automatically becomes a Democrat, but it probably would make an interesting research topic.

Alan

So what, you should legislate or force people how to behave, to act according to what you *think* is “appropriate” behavior at this particular point in time?

No

How are you any different from the religious lunatics on the extreme fringes?

Um, because I'm neither an extremist or a lunatic?

As they say, “the end justifies the means”, so long as we get to your desired destination about what human society should or should not be. You don’t think that is not some kind of utopian fantasy?

Yes, it is a utopian fantasy, and no, I don't believe "the end justifies the means" Relax

phin I was being general, I didn't mean you *you*. :)

C Stanley Alan, I think you are absolutely right in that people on the fringes tend to associate with the Dems- I'm just arguing that this isn't a very thoughtful approach. It's more emotional than rational. Should a political party be a club where you feel that you fit in and get your social needs met, or should it be a group of people whose policy proposals make sense? ;-) And- I hesitate a bit before I write this because I recall the last time I mentioned it I was mercilessly ridiculed about my age LOL- In my generation it was almost countercultural to be a conservative (as in, Michael J. Fox's character in Family Ties, the teenager who rebelled against his hippie parents by being a conservative). It's a bit like the way that kids want to identify as rebels but at some point they realize that all the other rebels are also piercing their navels so it's not so novel or different anymore and the way to set oneself apart from the other kids is actually to behave and dress in a more ordinary way. In general though, I agree that the philosophy itself of conservatism isn't a countercultural one, I'm just pointing out that there are exceptions to that rule and that the whole idea of counterculturalism and the way rebellious folks try to behave is often disingenuous. Rarely are people actually free to be individuals, they're only free to adopt a less mainstream subcultural lifestyle. Human nature is to declare oneself a member of one tribe or another and at the end of the day, if a bunch of people declare themselves to be in the "non-tribal tribe", they've effectively just created another tribal group and defeated their purpose.

phin Alan, My basic point was that statement about liberalism to me sounds extreme. I mean, how is one supposed to get to those desired goals without some form of cohersion, be it governmental or societal? Don't get me wrong, I don't completely disagree with the sentiments. They sound good in theory. It's the implementation of those principles that scare the crap out of me. Partly because I have seen it and lived through it in my own province and I can see what it has done and where it's heading.

C Stanley Michael: show some respect for your elders, please! LOL, I can't escape this harassment. Last night I was telling my son a story about when I was a little girl and he interrupted with "when dinosaurs roamed the earth!"

Alan

I think you are absolutely right in that people on the fringes tend to associate with the Dems- I’m just arguing that this isn’t a very thoughtful approach. It’s more emotional than rational

I agree. But as Michael said people don't act on a purely rational basis. And couldn't I like Democratic policy proposals as well as feeling accepted? ;)

the implementation of those principles that scare the crap out of me. Partly because I have seen it and lived through it in my own province and I can see what it has done and where it’s heading.

Don't worry, I don't care for coercive proposals and I don't think most mainstream liberals/Democrats do either.

Last night I was telling my son a story about when I was a little girl and he interrupted with “when dinosaurs roamed the earth!”

LOL! I hope he was kidding! Although if he's young enough he might think that was true... Michael- Behave yourself, young man! ;) Or I'll whack you in the head with my Pong game system (if my dad still has that up in the attic) ;) Kind of funny, my friends had a then state-of-the-art Atari 2600, and we had Pong.