The discussion centers on the definitions and implications of "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies, particularly in the context of political discourse in the U.S. Participants highlight the fluidity of these terms, noting that their meanings can shift over time and vary by context. The conversation critiques the use of these labels as pejoratives that obscure true political agendas and emphasizes the complexity of defining political identities. Key points include the observation that both terms can represent extreme positions and that politicians often manipulate these definitions to serve their interests.
PREREQUISITESPolitical analysts, sociologists, historians, and anyone interested in understanding the complexities of political identity and discourse.
Originally posted by Zero
Actually, I think you bring up a good point. Conservatism can be a great thing...but it never progresses./"Never?" The second law is NOT the child of the first law?Liberalism produces great new ideas,/Andy Warhol's soup can? vs. Rembrandt? Can you give us a f'rinstance or two?but can slip into undisciplined nonsense. Wouldn't that show that we need a bit of both, instead of one side trying to eradicate the other?
This is where we move from the philosophical arena to the political arena --- again, the first object of any political activity is the acquisition/expansion of power, and the second is the retention of that power --- there is no such thing as a "liberal politician" --- he/she/it is entirely too busy dealing with the first and second objectives of politicking. Same goes for political movements --- power first, retaining power second, and there ain't no third.
Well, I always thought of that as happening in the "2nd" or "3rd" generation of a movement...the best of intentions to start with, the taste of real power, and then the inevitable corruption. That's probably why I am so much in favor of term limits, and in not allowing people to hold too many different positions of power. Professional politics is a corrupting influence on even the most idealistic person.Originally posted by Bystander
This is where we move from the philosophical arena to the political arena --- again, the first object of any political activity is the acquisition/expansion of power, and the second is the retention of that power --- there is no such thing as a "liberal politician" --- he/she/it is entirely too busy dealing with the first and second objectives of politicking. Same goes for political movements --- power first, retaining power second, and there ain't no third.
It is probably a combination...a compromise here, a turning your head from the truth there...it all adds up.Originally posted by Bystander
Which assumption do you make? That the power of public office corrupts the office holder, or, that the office holder corrupts the power of the public office?
I maintain the latter --- history presents very few examples of clean politicians --- they are remarkable for the fact that they remained clean while in office, or quit office when pressures to corrupt the power of the office became too great for them to tolerate. There aren't any examples I've run into of cases in which an office was so dirty and corrupting that it turned Mother T. into Ma Barker.