Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by eameece

When the Crisis truly begins, this will be more easy. Until then, we will have to look to Kerry or Gephardt to somehow find the nerve to wage the right kind of campaign, and not only challenge Bush's warmongering (which they haven't done yet) but present a progressive agenda persuasively. I don't know what the chances of this are.

Sorry. As far as I'm concerned, Gephardt sold out by not opposing Bush last fall. The guy makes my skin crawl. And I'm not sure about Kerry either.

Hear, hear. Dick Gephardt strikes me as a sleazy political opportunist who, if elected, might end up making Bill Clinton look like a saint. Tom Daschle doesn't seem much better. I haven't seen enough of John Kerry to make a judgement.

The Democrats can do much better. They can start by giving the entire Austin Powers Swingin' Silent cohort group the old heave-ho. My money is on either John Edwards or Howard Dean.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by eameece

When the Crisis truly begins, this will be more easy. Until then, we will have to look to Kerry or Gephardt to somehow find the nerve to wage the right kind of campaign, and not only challenge Bush's warmongering (which they haven't done yet) but present a progressive agenda persuasively. I don't know what the chances of this are.

Sorry. As far as I'm concerned, Gephardt sold out by not opposing Bush last fall. The guy makes my skin crawl. And I'm not sure about Kerry either.

Hear, hear. Dick Gephardt strikes me as a sleazy political opportunist who, if elected, might end up making Bill Clinton look like a saint. Tom Daschle doesn't seem much better. I haven't seen enough of John Kerry to make a judgement.

The Democrats can do much better. They can start by giving the entire Austin Powers Swingin' Silent cohort group the old heave-ho. My money is on either John Edwards or Howard Dean.

Dean, yes; Edwards, no. The last thing we need is another sunbelt politician, regardless of persuassion. Isn't 40 years long enough? A candidtae coming from a different regional perspective might be the ticket the Democtrats need to change the political debate.

And as far as the Republicans are concerned, let's not forget this interesting though unreliable indicator: both of the previously elected Texans got voted-out in the election following their greatest victories.

Here's hoping. :wink:

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I would not say that conservatives support the status quo. Social Security and AFDC were established a lifetime ago. Surely these are part of the status quo today. Yet, many conservatives today still oppose these programs. At the same time, they support the much more recent Civil Rights changes of the 1960's.

Surely, you've heard of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which abolished the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program, replacing it with block grants to states. Welfare is no longer an entitlement, but is now envisioned as a temporary assistance to families to help them back on their feet and ready to work. AFDC is dead as a dog.

Yes I am. After 60 years on the books AFDC was certainly the status quo, but conservatives always opposed it and eventually got rid of it. This shows it is not the status quo that conservatives support, but something different.

I would not say that conservatives support the status quo. Social Security and AFDC were established a lifetime ago. Surely these are part of the status quo today. Yet, many conservatives today still oppose these programs.

I Social Security, as presently constituted, part of the status quo, or only the idea of a governmental mandate to ensure retirement to some degree?

Do conservatives want to abolish that mandate, or simply change the nature of the program?

Are those who want to do either one, properly considered conservatives? There's a difference between a conservative and a reactionary.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I would not say that conservatives support the status quo. Social Security and AFDC were established a lifetime ago. Surely these are part of the status quo today. Yet, many conservatives today still oppose these programs. At the same time, they support the much more recent Civil Rights changes of the 1960's.

Surely, you've heard of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which abolished the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program, replacing it with block grants to states. Welfare is no longer an entitlement, but is now envisioned as a temporary assistance to families to help them back on their feet and ready to work. AFDC is dead as a dog.

Yes I am. After 60 years on the books AFDC was certainly the status quo, but conservatives always opposed it and eventually got rid of it. This shows it is not the status quo that conservatives support, but something different.

Sorry, I guess I was quibbling over the words. The statements

Social Security and AFDC were established a lifetime ago. Surely these are part of the status quo today. Yet, many conservatives today still oppose these programs.

made it seem that you were under the impression that AFDC was alive and well.

Your larger point is well taken -- that those we typically call "conservative" wanted to do something radical and restructure our welfare and social security systems.

Originally Posted by walterhoch

The definitions of liberal and conservative today, as debated above, are fluid to some degree. Conservatives are not always for the status quo by any means, e.g. Reagan's talk about eliminating the Department of Education, which as a former educator I think is a marvelous idea, was actually an attack on the liberal status quo, a very radical notion, which is why it died. Liberals have their status quo areas where they want nothing to change, conservatives have their areas where they want everything to change!

I think many people would like to see the entire U.S. Tax Code burned and replaced with a smaller, simpler one. But both sides have their pockets filled because of the complexity of the code, and so the idea goes nowhere. (Where is Mr. Forbes today?)

Better to define the status quos and the problems that both sides want preserved or changed rather than the old distinction that liberals "want to change things" and conservatives "want to maintain a status quo."

Right! I am also not sure that another distinction often heard about the "speed of change" in the 2 camps is valid either. I recall being taught in the '50's and '60's that a conservative was not necessarily against change, just more careful about how quickly you would want to change things, tolerating a problem longer than fair or necessary, while liberals were more willing to experiment and change things overnight to stop a problem, risking a solution that might be worse than the original problem!

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

After 60 years on the books AFDC was certainly the status quo, but conservatives always opposed it and eventually got rid of it. This shows it is not the status quo that conservatives support, but something different.

Sorry, I guess I was quibbling over the words. The statements

Social Security and AFDC were established a lifetime ago. Surely these are part of the status quo today. Yet, many conservatives today still oppose these programs.

made it seem that you were under the impression that AFDC was alive and well.

Your larger point is well taken -- that those we typically call "conservative" wanted to do something radical and restructure our welfare and social security systems.

Well, this "nonexistent person" poster would like to drop a little more historic fact upon the thread table...

In constant 1980 dollars, the federal government spent $66.2 billion on public aid from 1965 to 1969, more than double the amount spent in the previous five years under the Eisenhower and Kennedy budgets. But in the next five years, under Nixon, public aid spending increased another $80 billion. "Johnson hated welfare... Most of the explosion occurred on Nixon's watch." --Mickey Kaus (Editor, The New Republic)




Source: Investor?s Business Daily, June 19,1992

I think Mike makes a good point. People of ideological bent act from principal, whether you agree with their principals or not. If I had to assign a basic value structure to each, it might look like this:

• CONSERVATIVE:
• Puritanical authoritarians, interested in enforcing proper individual behavior, but less concerned in the use of private power
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the the "stick" to the "carrot"
• Highly judgemental on a personal level, but supportive of established institutions
• Value loyalty and order, perhaps to an unacceptable extreme.

• LIBERAL:
• Class authoritarians, interested in controlling the private use of power, but less concerned with indivual behavior
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the "carrot" to the "stick"
• Non-judgemental on a personal level, but suspicious of established institutions
• Undervalue loyalty, and apparently thrive on chaos.

Of course, this is overly simplistic, but compare the words of some of our most vehement idelogues to this model. Feel free to add or subtract. :wink:

Originally Posted by David '47

I think Mike makes a good point. People of ideological bent act from principal, whether you agree with their principals or not. If I had to assign a basic value structure to each, it might look like this:

• CONSERVATIVE:
• Puritanical authoritarians, interested in enforcing proper individual behavior, but less concerned in the use of private power
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the the "stick" to the "carrot"
• Highly judgemental on a personal level, but supportive of established institutions
• Value loyalty and order, perhaps to an unacceptable extreme.

• LIBERAL:
• Class authoritarians, interested in controlling the private use of power, but less concerned with indivual behavior
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the "carrot" to the "stick"
• Non-judgemental on a personal level, but suspicious of established institutions
• Undervalue loyalty, and apparently thrive on chaos.

Of course, this is overly simplistic, but compare the words of some of our most vehement idelogues to this model. Feel free to add or subtract. :wink:

Hmmm....as an exercise, let's see how I measure up. I would say that I am....

• Both class and cultural authoritarian-ish, interested in strictly controlling the private use of power, as well as encouraging proper individual behavior in public (out of fear of how negative social excesses on part of individuals often influence others to follow suit) and the keeping of improper individual behavior private (so others are less-often cajoled into joining in, or harassed if they refuse to.)
  
• In trying to influence behavior, prefer to use the carrot first, but have no problem using a very big stick when and if the carrot fails.
  
• Fairly judgemental on a personal level, supportive of established institutions that are working, suspicious of those that either aren't working or encourage improper behavior.
  
• Strongly value loyalty and order, and absolutely loath chaos.
  
  Does this make me a conservative or a liberal?
  

Originally Posted by David '47

I think Mike makes a good point. People of ideological bent act from principal, whether you agree with their principals or not. If I had to assign a basic value structure to each, it might look like this:

• CONSERVATIVE:
• Puritanical authoritarians, interested in enforcing proper individual behavior, but less concerned in the use of private power
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the the "stick" to the "carrot"
• Highly judgemental on a personal level, but supportive of established institutions
• Value loyalty and order, perhaps to an unacceptable extreme.

• LIBERAL:
• Class authoritarians, interested in controlling the private use of power, but less concerned with indivual behavior
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the "carrot" to the "stick"
• Non-judgemental on a personal level, but suspicious of established institutions
• Undervalue loyalty, and apparently thrive on chaos.

Of course, this is overly simplistic, but compare the words of some of our most vehement idelogues to this model. Feel free to add or subtract. :wink:

hmm... I'd say that Kevin is slightly more liberal than conservative but more authoritarian than anything else (i.e. a "Lautenberg Democrat"); looking at the chart I see myself as follows:
-Totally anti-authoritarian; not interested at all in enforcing "proper" individual behavior and only interested in controlling the use of private power in cases of bona fide exploitation
-When trying to influence behavior, prefer the carrot (but like Kevin, would resort to the stick if the carrot fails)
-Slightly judgemental on a personal level, and suspicious of nearly all established institutions
-Value loyalty (hey, I *am* a Taurus) and order in some cases, but also thrives on chaos (I love the study of chaos theory... oh wait, you mean chaos as in the absence of order, not chaos as in dynamical systems :-))

So I'd say I'm a good bit more liberal than conservative, and somewhat more libertarian than authoritarian (the only political figure who seems close is Nader; at T4T tho this places me solidly in the Meece/Rush/Reed/Petrone liberal wing though...)

I noticed this in my local TV listings and post from
Yahoo! TV




NBC 6
Jan 06 07:00pm


Series/Game Shows,
60 Mins.
Episode #313.
Contestants dine on horse rectum.

Producer(s): John de Mol,
Matt Kunitz,
Douglas Ross.



Original Airdate: January 6, 2003.



Just who is the *sshole in this entertainment? The viewer, the producer, the contestant, the advertiser? 3T RULZ! :o :lol:

Originally Posted by David '47

• CONSERVATIVE:
• Puritanical authoritarians, interested in enforcing proper individual behavior, but less concerned in the use of private power
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the the "stick" to the "carrot"
• Highly judgemental on a personal level, but supportive of established institutions
• Value loyalty and order, perhaps to an unacceptable extreme.

• LIBERAL:
• Class authoritarians, interested in controlling the private use of power, but less concerned with indivual behavior
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the "carrot" to the "stick"
• Non-judgemental on a personal level, but suspicious of established institutions
• Undervalue loyalty, and apparently thrive on chaos.

Personally, I say this is a pretty skewed and silly excersise in label denial.

It's the liberal wackos that are trying to outlaw personal choice on certain kinds of motor vehicles. It's liberal wackos that just as soon see every American become vegetarians. It's liberal wackos that see a tree, a spotted owl and a snail dartar as more important than a human life and happiness. It's liberal wackos that want my kids to have free access to pot, condoms and abortion on demand, but if a kid's caught with a cigarette, much less a butter knife; Whoa! Zero Tolerance Time!

Ever since 1933 and the New Deal, liberals, my firends, have seen government as the Almighty, the ever present means to their end which is power. Since 1972 the only thing that's changed is that they seek to be arbiters cultural Political Correctness, as well. Every single special interest groups, from teachers unions to minorities to in your face gays and lesbos at the NEA, these people are collectivtists at heart. And it is the power of the federal government trough they all feed from.

In short, modern-day liberals are kooks!

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Since, as I see it, the whole agenda of the last 2T is anti-American to the core, I've all but accepted that before this 4T is over, the United States will be all alone against a massive enemy coalition. Thus, my idea of optimism for this 4T would be for the US to prevent or avoid the total catastrophic defeat that Bob Butler seems to expect us to suffer, and thus force our enemies to the negotiating table. Of course, that would mean that the next 1T would involve another Cold War at least as chilly as the one in the last 1T. As for the idea that the US should embrace said 2T agenda, I honestly believe that would be tantamount to national suicide. And as for Brian Rush's idea that we should actually take part in helping to form a World Government based on said agenda, the rest of the world would NEVER agree to that, even if we would. So, there we are: trapped by circumstances that are at least partially beyond our control.

If my guess is right, and the agenda of this 4T is the agenda of the last 2T, then once the Crisis mood has fully catalyzed, not only here but around the world, each passing year will see the level of provocation needed to bring the rest of the World into active military conflict with us go down a little more. Thus, while it might take war with Iraq to do it now, by 2010 it might take something which all parties concerned would consider downright silly right now. Hypothetical examples: a US President snubs some diplomat. Or, something a President says is taken out of context and made to sound insulting to some other World leader. The result: (Bing-bang-bong) WAR! And should such a war end with a decisive US defeat (which is NOT likely!), then you can bank on an exceedingly harsh Carthaginian Peace being forced upon us by an exceedingly vindictive enemy coalition.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

I noticed this in my local TV listings and post from
Yahoo! TV




NBC 6
Jan 06 07:00pm


Series/Game Shows,
60 Mins.
Episode #313.
Contestants dine on horse rectum.

Producer(s): John de Mol,
Matt Kunitz,
Douglas Ross.



Original Airdate: January 6, 2003.



Just who is the *sshole in this entertainment? The viewer, the producer, the contestant, the advertiser? 3T RULZ! :o :lol:

Yup, the first Fear Factor did air before 9/11, so that would explain a lot.

Speaking of "modern-day liberal kooks."

Our wacko liberal beanheads over at the Economic Policy Institute has a wonderful "economic stimulus plan for 2003." It involves a "one-time wage bonus from general revenues, providing "a worker who earned $15,000 in 2002" a "rebate of $525." And lordy lordy, a "family with two such workers would receive $1,050." Shazzam!

Good gawd, not even in the very heyday of the Francis Townsend Pension Plan stimulus of the 1930s did America see this kind of nutty leftist lunacy.

Hell, back then it was unemployment rates of 20%! Not the paltry 6% of today.

Oh, yes, even if it feeds one single solitary starving child, all those billions will be well spent. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by David '47

• CONSERVATIVE:
• Puritanical authoritarians, interested in enforcing proper individual behavior, but less concerned in the use of private power
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the the "stick" to the "carrot"
• Highly judgemental on a personal level, but supportive of established institutions
• Value loyalty and order, perhaps to an unacceptable extreme.

• LIBERAL:
• Class authoritarians, interested in controlling the private use of power, but less concerned with indivual behavior
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the "carrot" to the "stick"
• Non-judgemental on a personal level, but suspicious of established institutions
• Undervalue loyalty, and apparently thrive on chaos.

Personally, I say this is a pretty skewed and silly excersise in label denial.

It's the liberal wackos that are trying to outlaw personal choice on certain kinds of motor vehicles. It's liberal wackos that just as soon see every American become vegetarians. It's liberal wackos that see a tree, a spotted owl and a snail dartar as more important than a human life and happiness. It's liberal wackos that want my kids to have free access to pot, condoms and abortion on demand, but if a kid's caught with a cigarette, much less a butter knife; Whoa! Zero Tolerance Time!

Label denial? Now there is a novel term, Marc! Well, I suppose it's possible. However...

...last April I went out to dinner with a GOPer gal from Bexley whose sister, Colleen, was a law-and-order, nuke-em-til-they-glow, personal responsibility, dyed-in-the-wool lifelong Republican...and also happened to be a tree-hugging vegetarian!

Now, I'll admit that Colleen's are not the usual combination of views most of us are accustomed to seeing...but I honestly don't see her as hypocritical in any way. For in the final analysis, why can't one be tough on crime, a strong-defense foreign policy hawk and be against single parenthood, while at the same time not happen to enjoy eating meat, and be concerned about renewable resources? Where exactly is the conflict-- other than not being able to easily categorize her in terms of traditional liberal/conservative labels?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Speaking of "modern-day liberal kooks."

Our wacko liberal beanheads over at the Economic Policy Institute has a wonderful "economic stimulus plan for 2003." It involves a "one-time wage bonus from general revenues, providing "a worker who earned $15,000 in 2002" a "rebate of $525." And lordy lordy, a "family with two such workers would receive $1,050." Shazzam!

Yes, I'd agree that this is a bonehead idea. $525 would cover most of my rent for one measly month; $1050 would throw in dinner for two, with a little change. Oh, gee, great. One gets to freeze or starve to death next month instead of next week. It's a classic example of throwing money at a problem you don't really have the balls to solve, merely to assuage one's liberal guilt at being born rich.

A much better idea would be mandatory advance notice of pending layoffs (so that hard working people aren't suddenly left hanging in the wind), job placement services for laid off employees (including relocation expenses, if necessary), and retraining/education for workers whose jobs become obsolete-- jointly paid for by both Big Government and Big Business. Not perfect....there will still likely be people who will starve or freeze still. But at least it would be an honest attempt to help people through difficult times, rather than a farce, designed to make some feel-good prick of a left-wing politician feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Mr. Parker, I am the proud caretaker of one of the largest White Oak trees in Ohio. Not to mention over eighty Fraxinus americana, many reaching sixty feet tall, and over twenty other species of trees on my unique and rich habitat here in southern Ohio.

I love trees, and see their benefit to mankind. But I do not hug them Mr. Parker. Especiallly my Gleditsia triacanthos, as the act would do great bodily harm. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Mr. Parker, I am the proud caretaker of one of the largest White Oak trees in Ohio. Not to mention over eighty Fraxinus americana, many reaching sixty feet tall, and over twenty other species of trees on my unique and rich habitat here in southern Ohio.

I love trees, and see their benefit to mankind. But I do not hug them Mr. Parker. Especiallly my Gleditsia triacanthos, as the act would do great bodily harm. :wink:

That is good to know :-)

BTW, when i first moved to Washington State in 1990, there was this bumper sticker that was quite in vogue. I read something like...

"I LOVE SPOTTED OWL!!!!! (Fried, grilled, barbequed, fricasseed, roasted, broasted.......etc., etc.)

I care about endangered species too, but i thought the sticker was absolutely hilarious. And apropos.

DENIAL?? What denial?


Bush Administration quashes Layoff Statistics
by David Lazarus - SF Chronicle ? Sunday January 05, 2003 at 11:56 AM


The Bush administration, under fire for its handling of the economy, has quietly killed off a Labor Department program that tracked mass layoffs by U.S. companies.

Shooting the messenger: Report on layoffs killed

The Bush administration, under fire for its handling of the economy, has quietly killed off a Labor Department program that tracked mass layoffs by U.S. companies.

The statistic, which had been issued monthly and was closely watched by hard-hit Silicon Valley, served as a pulse reading of corporate America's financial health.

There's still plenty of economic data available charting employment trends nationwide. But the mass-layoffs stat comprised an easy-to-understand overview of which industries are in the greatest distress and which workers are bearing the brunt of the turmoil.

"It was a visible number," said Gary Schlossberg, senior economist at Wells Capital Management in San Francisco. "In times like these, it was a good window on how businesses were cutting back."

No longer. But then, businesses cutting back didn't exactly jibe with the White House's recent declarations that prosperity is right around the corner.

You had to look pretty hard just to learn that the mass-layoffs stat had been scotched. No announcement was made by the Labor Department, and no prominent mention of the change was posted at the department's Web site.

In fact, news of the program's termination came only in the form of a single paragraph buried deep within a press release issued on Christmas Eve about November's mass layoffs.

It simply said that funding for the program had dried up and that the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics was unable to find an alternative source of funding.

No doubt as intended, the announcement slipped by virtually unnoticed. Even state officials were surprised to learn of the demise of what they called an important, if downbeat, barometer of the nation's economy.

Sharon Brown oversaw compilation of the mass-layoffs number at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Washington. She was pleased to blow her agency's horn.

HIGH-QUALITY PROGRAM

"This was a high-quality program, producing timely information on important developments in the labor market," Brown said.

According to the bureau's final monthly report, U.S. employers initiated 2, 150 mass layoffs in November, affecting 240,028 workers. A mass layoff is defined as any firing involving at least 50 people.

California by far had the most employees given the boot -- 62,764, primarily in administrative services. Wisconsin was a distant second with 15, 544, followed by Texas with 14,624.

Between January and November, 17,799 mass layoffs were recorded and nearly 2 million workers were handed their hats by businesses.

Brown said that because of a bureaucratic quirk, the $6.6 million in annual funding for the mass-layoffs program -- money primarily doled out to state officials to gather relevant data -- was channeled through the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration.

FUNDING ELIMINATED

When that agency decided it needed more cash to handle its own affairs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was told to look elsewhere for its budget needs.

Apparently no extra money was to be found anywhere within the Labor Department, which had a total budget of $44.4 billion last year, up from $39.2 billion in 2001.

"With very finite discretionary resources, we have to make difficult decisions," said Mason Bishop, the Labor Department's deputy assistant secretary for employment training. "We didn't see how this program was helping workers re-enter the workforce."

Coincidentally, the same conclusion was reached in 1992 when the first President Bush canceled the Mass-Layoffs Statistics program amid election-year charges that he had bungled handling of the economy.

REVIVED BY CLINTON

The program was resuscitated two years later by the Clinton administration.

Now Bush the younger is following in his father's footsteps, once again deciding that the American people have no real need to know how many mass layoffs are made each month.

"It's questionable what value this program has for workers," insisted Bishop.

On the other hand, the Labor Department this week released a sweeping study of volunteer work over the past year, reporting that 59 million Americans donated their time and know-how to helping others.

President Bush has spoken repeatedly about the virtues of volunteerism since taking office in 2001.

VOLUNTEERISM MEASURED

During his own stint in the White House, the elder Bush was a proud advocate of community service. That was also the last time the Labor Department was told to devote its finite discretionary resources to a study of volunteer work by U.S. citizens.

Then, as now, it's difficult to see how feel-good surveys of volunteer activities contribute to an understanding of the economy's vitality or the re- employment of displaced workers.

There does seem to be merit, though, in easily seeing how many people have received pink slips as companies tighten their belts, and which states and industries are in facing the greatest challenges.

"The United States economy is growing again," Bush declared in a holiday radio address from his Texas ranch. "This economy is strong and it can be stronger."

And if not, best to just sweep the whole mess under the rug.

E-mail David Lazarus at dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.


a

I would not say that conservatives support the status quo. Social Security and AFDC were established a lifetime ago. Surely these are part of the status quo today. Yet, many conservatives today still oppose these programs. At the same time, they support the much more recent Civil Rights changes of the 1960's.

What I said above applies. It is liberal to continue to support programs and policies that bring more power to more of the people. That's what Social Security and AFDC does. A lifetime ago is a short time anyway. Many conservatives also oppose civil rights, but there is a stigma attached to doing so (because of the race element) so they use catchphrases instead like opposing affirmative action, busing, immigration, etc.

Rather than status quo, I would say conservatives support the natural order of things. By natural order I mean "the way things oughta be" given the way people really are (i.e. human nature) rather than what we would like them to be.

Conservatives contend that the current status quo of power (provided that it favors the wealthy and powerful few) is the "natural order of things" and ought not to be change. What is really moral or natural per se has nothing to do with conservative policy, however. This power of the few over the many also extends to the power of traditional religion, of course, and that's where the religious right comes in and their being in favor of "morality." It is simply a matter of favoring and not questioning or opposing traditional authority and power.

Obviously too, if once "liberal" bureaucratic power becomes corrupt and self-perpetuating, it is "liberal" to want to bust up this power. But to eliminate the check against conservative corporate power provided by government entirely, is conservative. To reform it to make sure it serves the people, is liberal.

Regarding Gephardt--

If we want someone who is of high principle and an effective campaigner who supports mostly progressive policies, it is futile to find that person in the current Democratic Party; certainly among those who are running. Because of Bush we are forced to acquiese in the consideration (if not support) of a lesser of two evils. Howard Dean hasn't a prayer of winning because he is not a dynamic candidate with wide name recognition. He will simply be buried. Edwards is another southern moderate Clinton, Gore, Johnson, Carter and won't revitalize the progressive core of the Democratic Party. When faced with the choice of a real Republican and a phony one, the public will choose the real one. Nor does Edwards have any experience, and that is a handicap. Liebermann is not even worth mentioning (though I just did; ha!)

Daschle is a wimp who has been unable to arouse the Democrats to victory. Kerry is a fresh alternative, but is also a wimp and cannot arouse or inspire anyone. That leaves Gephardt. Besides doing what other politicians do and accept money from special interests, I don't see him as sleazy. He has none of the Clinton moral problems. But I agree he sold out and also was unable to stave off a Republican victory this fall. But he is an effective campaigner whose policies are at least somewhat progressive. I don't know who else there is in the Party.

I think he has to make an about face on the war and Bush's foreign policy. He has changed his stands before, and there is nothing wrong with that per se. He has also been consistent over many years in his views.

Originally Posted by eameece

Regarding Gephardt--

If we want someone who is of high principle and an effective campaigner who supports mostly progressive policies, it is futile to find that person in the current Democratic Party; certainly among those who are running. Because of Bush we are forced to acquiese in the consideration (if not support) of a lesser of two evils. Howard Dean hasn't a prayer of winning because he is not a dynamic candidate with wide name recognition. He will simply be buried. Edwards is another southern moderate Clinton, Gore, Johnson, Carter and won't revitalize the progressive core of the Democratic Party. When faced with the choice of a real Republican and a phony one, the public will choose the real one. Nor does Edwards have any experience, and that is a handicap. Liebermann is not even worth mentioning (though I just did; ha!)

Daschle is a wimp who has been unable to arouse the Democrats to victory. Kerry is a fresh alternative, but is also a wimp and cannot arouse or inspire anyone. That leaves Gephardt. Besides doing what other politicians do and accept money from special interests, I don't see him as sleazy. He has none of the Clinton moral problems. But I agree he sold out and also was unable to stave off a Republican victory this fall. But he is an effective campaigner whose policies are at least somewhat progressive. I don't know who else there is in the Party.

I think he has to make an about face on the war and Bush's foreign policy. He has changed his stands before, and there is nothing wrong with that per se. He has also been consistent over many years in his views.

Well, that's it then: Bush again in '04. There's no way a Swingin' Silent like Gephardt is going to lead the country through the current Crisis-- bold leadership is simply not what Artists do. But in '08 the leading edge of the late-Boomer/Joneser cohort will be age 51. A President born in 1957 or '58 may provide just the combination of idealism, pragmatism, determination and maturity that America sorely needs.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Well, that's it then: Bush again in '04. There's no way a Swingin' Silent like Gephardt is going to lead the country through the current Crisis-- bold leadership is simply not what Artists do. But in '08 the leading edge of the late-Boomer/Joneser cohort will be age 51. A President born in 1957 or '58 may provide just the combination of idealism, pragmatism, determination and maturity that America sorely needs.

The presidental primaries are more than a year away, means anything can happen in that time, the field of potential challgeners to GW Bush seem not inspiring now, however in mid 2004 things could be radically different (for instance somebody unexpected might enter the race).

I can confidently predict National Security/War on terrorism will be a minor issue by 2004 and other more pressing issues (which are in a way linked to issue domainting today's political debate) would have entered the fray. I predict this year at least two of the three 'axis of evil' countries will come into the pro-US democracy camp Iraq and Iran.

In the meanwhile Republican congress and White House is going to very interesting, given the behaviour of Adminstration and Congress in 2001, When the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by David '47

• CONSERVATIVE:
• Puritanical authoritarians, interested in enforcing proper individual behavior, but less concerned in the use of private power
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the the "stick" to the "carrot"
• Highly judgemental on a personal level, but supportive of established institutions
• Value loyalty and order, perhaps to an unacceptable extreme.

• LIBERAL:
• Class authoritarians, interested in controlling the private use of power, but less concerned with indivual behavior
• When trying to influence behavior, prefer the "carrot" to the "stick"
• Non-judgemental on a personal level, but suspicious of established institutions
• Undervalue loyalty, and apparently thrive on chaos.

Personally, I say this is a pretty skewed and silly excersise in label denial.

It's the liberal wackos that are trying to outlaw personal choice on certain kinds of motor vehicles. It's liberal wackos that just as soon see every American become vegetarians. It's liberal wackos that see a tree, a spotted owl and a snail dartar as more important than a human life and happiness. It's liberal wackos that want my kids to have free access to pot, condoms and abortion on demand, but if a kid's caught with a cigarette, much less a butter knife; Whoa! Zero Tolerance Time!

Ever since 1933 and the New Deal, liberals, my firends, have seen government as the Almighty, the ever present means to their end which is power. Since 1972 the only thing that's changed is that they seek to be arbiters cultural Political Correctness, as well. Every single special interest groups, from teachers unions to minorities to in your face gays and lesbos at the NEA, these people are collectivtists at heart. And it is the power of the federal government trough they all feed from.

I live in Virginia, which has been in the thrall of the hard right for some time. Under George Allen the Younger, we underfunded services like transprotation and education, but we built enough prison cells to last for 50 years ... even though the same GAtY managed to have parole abolished and attempted to have post incarceration sevices defunded. His successor, Jim Gilmore the Dim, continued by eliminating taxes when budget shortfals were already emerging, and by pretending that this was OK because transportaion problems could be solved by privatization.

Originally Posted by ... finishing his thought, Marc

In short, modern-day liberals are kooks!

At least liberals understand simple economics. Just how do you get more revenue by lowering already low taxes again?