By Meagan Dixon
Well hello everybody, I disappeared from the internet world for a while due to some real world commitments, and I see this discussion has been rather active while I was away. I am so excited!
So allow me to rejoinder.
I think the first, and possibly most important thing, I would like to comment on is definition. I was an English Major in college for a while (I was the typical college student and changed my major three times, finally resting with Multi-Cultural and Gender Studies yes, please paint your liberal labels now). Anywho, having a background in English, I find myself a rather technical person when it comes to the English language, and constantly revert back to definition. I would like to share some definitions with you:
Liberal: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Conservative: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
Democracy: a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
With a Democrat being a person whom believes in this political idea
Republic: 1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
With a Republican being a person whom believes in this political idea
These definitions were taken from Merriam Webster online, so if you disagree with them, please argue with them, not with me, but seeing they are a universally accepted source for the English language, I tend to find them reliable.
Here are a couple of other things I would like to point out:
The opposite of a liberal is a conservative. The opposite of a republican is a democrat. It is COMPLETELY possible to be a liberal republican, or a conservative democrat.
Now, just for the heck of it, I am going to throw out one more definition:
Extreme: going to great or exaggerated lengths
With an Extremist being a person whom believes in this political idea.
It is again COMPLETELY possible to be an Extreme Conservative (I think the KKK are a great example of this) or an Extreme Liberal (and I dont think I need to list them on this site).
My point in bringing up these definitions is because of the multiple responses to my comment:
So accuse me of being a liberal, and of being unpatriotic, and not understanding whats really going on. I find myself in good company! Heck, some of the greatest leaders of our nation were liberals! Just check out all the signatures on the Declaration of Independence to get a sampling.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were accused of being liberal, essentially for believing in autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. And that is not any different from what I believe in.
they fought slavery, fought for women to have the right to vote, fought against Hitler, Stalin, fought to end segregation, fought to end apartheid. Liberals put an end to child labor and they gave us the five day work week
When Barbara Stiresand said this, she was commenting on the definition of being a liberal as well. It was not a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change that fought for women to vote, for the abolition of Hitler and Stalin, who still strive to end segregation, and fought to end apartheid. It was liberals who forged these battles. And I hope that all educated people would agree these are positive changes to our world. And this has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It was actually Republican women who started the womens suffrage movement. But they were still liberals. In an article I read on this site earlier about 9-11 Tina says we can not talk about how things would have been if we had acted differently, the same holds true when discussing what people from history would believe in todays political climate. And while I dont know if Susan B. Anthony and I would agree on everything, I am sure we would find some resolve in both wanting the best for our fellow human, and working towards protecting civil liberties.
Now that I have focused on that tangent for entirely too long, Im going to move on, but I hope that I explained myself.
Most liberals don’t like the concept of right or wrong preferring instead the “there is no right and wrong” catch-all that disallows real debate because it shuns disagreement.
I disagree. I think most liberals try to consider the viewpoints of different people and understand where they are coming from. For instance, I could just come to this site and post on every article I read, Youre Wrong! or Youre Right! But where would that get any of us? Instead I try to understand where you are coming from, because maybe you know something I dont. I think most conservatives see things in black and white; you are friend or enemy, right or wrong, patriotic or traitor. There is no room for a grey area in the conservative mindset, and Im sorry, but people are chock-full of grey areas. I think liberals just try to remember that.
The point is that the Constitution specifically calls for the defense of the nation. It does not call for education, transportation, safety, and a million other institutions.
You are right, it dose, and that is a very good point. My counter to that which Im sure will evoke liberal-bashing comments is at which point in time was our nation in need of defense? Iraq did not pose any threat to our nation. Even if they had weapons of mass destruction and there are not many who believe they did our treatment of the entire situation served as more of a catalyst to insight an attack, as opposed to stopping one. And our continued occupation is doing nothing but causing unrest in countries all over the world.
The teacher in me would also argue that institutions as important as education and safety would do more to defend our nation then this war ever could have hoped of doing!
Quite frankly, we are luck our Constitution is not funding the defense of our nation against multiple countries as our acts have violated our membership in the UN and like it or not, we are a member. Moreover, we have not hesitated in threatening war on countries whom have violated a UN treaty, so we should count our blessings that our foreign counterparts have been more lenient with us.
I appreciate your feelings but the reality is you live in a republic and the republic voted to go to war…whether you agree or not does not matter. I know that sounds upside down but its the only thing that works unless you’d prefer to live in the chaos of anarchy or dictatorship. In a republic we have a responsibility to the republic as citizens which sometimes requires that we set aside our dislikes or disagreement.
I would not prefer to live in anarchy or dictatorship a simple democracy would work for me. And if whether I agree or not dose not matter then what are we doing here? Why do we pay attention to politics or politicians? Its because what I think dose matter, and by voicing my opinion I let the officials that I elected know what my opinion is, so they can vote on my behalf. Because I think we can all agree that leaving it up to the politicians would be a terrible mistake.
You aren’t being called unpatriotic because you disagree on certain points. You are called unpatriotic when you fail to act responsibly toward your elected government and instead give aid and comfort to the enemy. That so many of you fail to notice this is pretty alarming. It demonstrates a certain level of ignorance about world afairs.
I would love some specific examples of irresponsible behavior towards elected government, because quite frankly I think what you said was horse puck! The idea that because I do not agree with our President I am therefore giving aid and comfort to the enemy is asinine! And although I know I am pretty knowledgeable in the state of world affairs, having been to 17 countries, and being interested in different cultures and their political states, I wonder how you can lecture me on my ignorance since this site dose little to discuss political issues on a global level.
I doubt if there is a single signature on that document that represents a man that would agree with much of anything that liberals do or try to do today. Not what they say…they use lots of pretty words to show how much they care about people…but what they do and what the effects of what they do are.
Tina, I am so glad you get it! That fundamentally liberals are liberals. And although I am sure there are some things that liberals have done which have not gone wonderfully, there are also things conservatives have done which have had negative effects. And there are many liberal politicians who use pretty words to show how much they care about people, just as there are many conservative politicians who use pretty words to explain why their idea is right theyre politicians. Cause and effect is a demon we are all accountable to political party has nothing to do with this one!
Barbra’s a great singer…she knows very little about history.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this one!
And that for me anyway is the biggest bone of contention I have with liberals as it pertains to discussion. Liberals started this business of demonizing their opponents…in modern times anyway. I got the biggest kick out of the Clintons whining about the politics of personal destruction. The bodies lying in the path of nasty liberal politics is both long and wide. Conservatives didn’t start fighting back until the late nineteen eighties.
Two wrongs have never made a right. And I am sure we have no idea who started demonizing their opponents liberal or conservative but dont you think its time we stop it? And the comment Conservatives didnt start fighting back until the late nineteen eighties? Where did you get that fact?
If you are being hit with sludge you don’t feel you deserve in this political war, you might be right. This is a battle of my generation…I really hope yours can get beyond it somehow. Before you decide for sure and finally that it is conservatives that are so unreasonable and attacking you might want to look at the long history of attacks and dirty politics by liberals. They aren’t as nice as they pretend to be.
I never claimed that liberals were innocent when it comes to throwing out insults, in fact I would be willing to admit that I am guilty of it at some points in time. My point, like I said above, is that two wrongs dont make a right, so instead of attacking just because you see a liberal, you may want to stop and listen to the person, they just may surprise you.
As far as Steves comments about personal experience, I have to say that to a large degree I agree with him. Your statement insinuates that you used facts while he just insisted that you accept his opinion. But Meagan the facts you stated were second hand anecdotal. His were first hand. Forst hand anecdotal evidence is the best kind if it is true, so essentially the question is whether or not Steve is telling the truth, from my experience he is.
In no time or place has one persons experience of the world been taken down as fact. Never! And although your experience of the world may be similar to Steves, it still doesnt make it right. I dont mean to be disrespectful of you, or your experience, because I believe it is valid. You will just have to excuse me if I dont take it as fact.
My opinion dose come from my own experience. And although I have gotten some of my information from people who have first hand experience, as opposed to having been there myself, I dont feel it makes my opinion any less valid or correct.
Tina referred earlier to liberals inability to disagree, or proclaim a right and a wrong, and when it comes to experience she is correct. The way humans experience the world is one of those magical grey areas I mentioned above it has been documented time and time again that people who experience the same event remember it in different ways. Thats the fact, documented evidence. Opinions and experiences are subjective, and therefore open to interpretation.
The problem that I have, is that it seems that many liberals seem to prefer the opinions of people with far less experience.
My question to that is, at what point in time does experience equal enough to be deemed more than far less? Do you have to have a year of experience? Two years? Why are the experiences of the people I know far less than yours and Steves? I dont mean this as an attack, you could have a legitimate answer to my question, Im just wondering what it is!
Much of the concern that Steve mentioned with liberals is universally felt through out the military. I don’t know what to tell you, the perception is that liberals don’t support us. And while you may not be spitting on soldiers there are some active members of your political persuasion who don’t see anything wrong with burning soldiers in effigy, or defecating on the American Flag.(see Portland anti-war rally)
It makes me very sad that the perception is that liberals dont support the troops, because I know there are many of us who have worked very hard to make it evident that it is because we support our troops that we do not want them fighting in an unnecessary war. And while there may be some members of my political persuasion whom are acting in extremist ways, I would hope you would not judge all of us by their actions. Just like I would not judge all conservatives from my experience with extremists who have told me I have no right being educated and opinionated because my job in the world is to make babies and take care of my husband.
As far as our position in Iraq, I would be happy to discuss this with you both civilly and in great detail if you would be interested. I would be very happy to hear your positions, because I do believe that you have a genuine concern for what is right.
I very much look forward to that opportunity with you!
Again, sorry, not trying to be a punk, but unlike the politicians I dont care for i tend to speak my mind, which can result in some pretty raw statements from time to time.
Steve, I dont think you are a punk, and I actually appreciate that you were willing to take the time to read my opinion and respond in a civil fashion. I dont mind raw statements, its the unnecessary and unproductive ones that tend to raise my blood pressure. So thank you for your opinion, and I hope we can debate with one another in the future!
Thanks to everyone who commented and to Jack and Tina for allowing me to rant! I look forward to continuing this discussion in the future!
~ meagan