Saturday, July 09, 2011

A Simple Experiment

There is only way to ultimately prove the political validity and viability of either liberalism or conservatism as a way of correct governance for Society. Now in Science tests are done, experiments are repeated endlessly and new ones thought up to winnow through the various theories that sprout up to help explain this or that so as to ferret out better conclusions and so Politics should be no different. The Eternal Political Debate, Shaw, Dave, BB, Saty et al making their respective points, passionately argued of course and so what I propose is simply that we have fifty years of pure liberalism and fifty years of pure conservatism. Liberalism can go first if it wants. Of course this is a long time, real political epochs spanning generations but a Study of this magnitude and import takes time and you don't want various conservative pockets like Reaganism and fig Newtons let's say to offset the results, to give false positive readings spawn from a quirky kind of giddiness that doesn't prove anything anyway one way or the other. These things take time and since we'll all be long gone and dead by then it will be up to posthumous generations to study and collate the results and infuse the wisdom found therein to political systems in the future and so we'll all be more enlightened by then to know what to do and how to proceed...Oh wait, we've already had 50+ years of liberalism:)

23 comments:

  1. The United States was founded on conservative principles, and became a very successful. Now, liberalism has tainted us, and our economy is tanking. No experiment needed, we KNOW which one is superior.

    ReplyDelete
  2. & I say this, after 50+ years of liberalism why not try the other thing?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also note that cities and states run by Democrats are in the crapper but those run by Conservative aren't.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beth is wrong when she says this country was founded by conservative ideas.

    The Founding Fathers were radicals who broke away from the British government. A rebellion against the ruling government by any measure is radical.

    The conservatives in the colonies who did not support the break with Great Britain left the colonies and headed for Canada.

    What Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence was a radical idea--self-governance. Every monarch in Europe was appalled and frightened by this novel idea. Plays and operas that dealt with people turning against their monarchs were banned by their conservative governments.

    Our Founding Fathers were liberals by the word's definition and NOT conservative.

    adjective /ˈlib(ə)rəl/ 


    1.Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values

    2.Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
    - liberal citizenship laws

    3.(in a political context) Favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform
    - a liberal democratic state




    As for Beth's assertion of the blue states worse off than the red, she needs to provide evidence.

    Texas, a very big red state, is running a very big red deficit.

    My state, Massachusetts, a very blue state, has a deficit of $3 billion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I forgot to include the definition of conservative--for both adjective and noun:

    adjective /kənˈsərvətiv/ 


    1.Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion

    noun /kənˈsərvətiv/ 
    conservatives, plural

    1.A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics

    What the FFs did by signing onto the DoI was most assuredly NOT cautious nor traditional. It was a radically liberal idea/principle.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry Shaw, guess I need to be more specific for those of you who need help. Today's conservative principles are based on our Founding Fathers' ideals, OK?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the outdated links, though Shaw.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You're welcome Beth. Glad to be of help in educating you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since my time online may be limited today and tomorrow I'll have to sift through it and comment later. Interesting definitions, liberals sound like libertarians and conservatives sound like old fuddy-duds. Dunno if I like the definitions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Z-man that's a typical answer from people on the extreme right.

    Your fellow blogger "tha malcontent" doesn't trust Snopes, Beth questioned FactCheck.org in the past, and now you don't "like" the dictionary's definition of liberal and conservative.

    What the three of you have in common seems to be an inability to face facts, so you suspect the source of those facts because they don't square with your preconceived, and IMO, biased notions.

    I corrected Beth's wrong assertion that this country was founded on "conservative" principles, when in fact, it was founded on liberalism.

    Her reaction was to get snippy with me and imply something was wrong with my understanding, when in fact it is she who didn't know our country's history and the liberal ideas that brought about the American Revolution.



    "Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Um, no, I was just clarifying things for you, didn't know you were coming around so I needed to spell things out for you, Shaw, sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Beth,

    Covering up your ignorance by insulting me may make you feel better, but it doesn't change the fact that you didn't know what your were talking about.

    But I'm done with this useless snipping back and forth with you. You obviously have a problem with admitting error.

    One thing you can be proud of, Beth, is your mean spiritedness and insulting back talk.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Shaw when I saw the words "favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedom" I was simply pondering how this squares with the upcoming incandescent light bulb ban for example, all these myriad smoking bans we have in NYC which let's face it is being practically run by liberals, transfats and the list just goes on endlessly. As for "conservative" when it says "a person who is averse to change" that makes it sound like we still support things like slavery. The definitions are not totally bad Shaw but they need some tweaking. Satyavati herself has made the point in discussions with Lista about language in general that definitions change and get modified and evolve over time as is to be expected.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Exactly Soapster, Shaw just needs things spelled out for her, sometimes I don't know whether to pity that woman or simply pray for her.

    ReplyDelete
  15. She's correct though. Liberalism is predicated on Liberty. It's only recently been bastardized to infer the progressive natured government largess of today.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Right soap and JFK was your classic liberal all for lower taxes and a strong defense. I just love it when people like Shaw throw those words around. "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country", doesn't sound too progressive to me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. JFK;
    I met the guy when he spoke at our college back in the day. What's his take?
    "If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Soapie, isn't that why we call the leftists of today progressives instead of liberals?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I suppose some people do. I'm not all that interested in the classifications. I'm a party of 1.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country."

    I always hated this quote.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I heard something recently about how the original colonies were set up like communism and that's why so many of them ended up starving to death, and it wasn't until private property and the ideas of providing for oneself did the colonist start to thrive. I will need to find some info online about this.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I've learned alot about early American History in my two Hudson River Valley coffee table books. Apparently before the Revolutionary War large manored estates were all the rage and slaves were employed at places like Phillipsburg Manor so yeah things were not so hunky-dory even back then. All interesting stuff but I think you're right, things got alot better after the Founding Fathers started rocking 'n' rolling.

    ReplyDelete