George Wallace was a populist Democrat aa well as a segregationist till his latter years ...hardly a conservative when compared to a peer like Barry Goldwater.
Thurmond was a pork barrel Dem who only moved right when social policies propelled him.
I'm glad to have these youngsters but it looks like some social engineering indoctrination has already taken hold unfortunatey.
The new face of Conservatism....social moderation and a strong power projection. Still in the swing of increments, the left is winning. I don't know that things will ever recover baring a war.
We all grossly underestimated the victory of the left institutionally in academia and media and the subtle signs of their victory there are everywhere and will last possibly into at least the latter part of this century. Engineered fiscal, social, and cultural egalitariansim and parity are here to stay.
Lord....see my profile page. I was a bona fide lefty.
But....I was always suspicious of social engineering. Having been raised in a pro-civil rights family(at ground zero where such views had real consequences) I had already seen how that once noble cause had already been hijacked by the mid 70s for quotas and vicitmization and the demonization of the so called opressor.
I would say my views on abortion have been the benchmark of my conversion from lefty to moderate to "fire breather".
From the many posts I review almost daily here I would surmise that most so called conservatives are social moderates...either thru conviction or pragmatism.
Maybe I'm just older than most here...45.
I agree, parenting really changes one's perspectives....hopefully.
Thought you might like to read a liberal's response to the article:
"2003.05.31 -- Right, left, and farther left
I've been giving some thought to a recent New York Times article about "Young, Hip
Republicans", and a few heated message board discussions I've seen in response.
(Let the political ranting commence...)
I consider myself to have a fairly radical political/social agenda, but I question the wisdom of
slapping a label on myself. I wouldn't do it but for a need to identify myself to others, to give
people a relatively good idea of what I stand for.
I do understand the phenomenon of "Young, Hip Republicans" - people want to align
themselves with what they perceive as the most powerful thing going at the time, and they don't
always give much thought to the ideology they're supporting. Hence, the Working-Class
Republican. And sometimes, aligning to one side or the other is a result of cultural influences or
upbringing - hence, the Trust-Fund Liberal.
It occurs to me that there's a lot of demonization of the left by the right, and vice versa, these
days. While I'm not convinced that the two can find much common ground, I think some
barriers would come down if we were willing to explore our perceptions of one another.
I can only speak to my own view of the right. The talk show hosts and columnists in the media
that align themselves with the "conservative" point of view seem always to be talking hate,
stoking anger, and perpetuating the myth of the Oppressed White Male. Do those guys really
speak for all conservatives, and if so, what am I supposed to think but that being a
conservative means advocating hate-mongering and racism?
I also get that the right stands for money and business over just about everything else - the
environment, the quality of human life. What else is that but greed?
That's not to say that the "left" isn't motivated by greed - if we're talking about left and right in
terms of political parties, the Democrats are as shady as the Republicans. I'm not even sure I
consider Democrats "left" anymore. The difference between the two parties is that the GOP is
open, even brazen about its greed; the Democrats just keep their deals on the downlow.
I always thought that the focal point of a conservative philosophy was the desire to see
government less involved in people's lives. In other words, government is not responsible for
taking care of its citizens - everyone fends for themselves.
But I do think that goal is callous and selfish. No one who advocates letting the "free market"
decide ever addresses how easy it is to manipulate the "free market", or discusses the damage
that the forces of the "free market" can do without regulation.
And while we're on the subject, how do members of the group with a "survival of the fittest"
philosophy still have an issue with evolution being taught in schools? :)
But the right-wing wish to see less involved government apparently only extends to financial
matters. Otherwise, conservatives seem pretty darn content to push a single moral code on
everyone else, and they're certainly not above attempting to use federal law to manipulate our
spiritual choices, or sexual choices, or our reproductive choices. And let's look at the actions of
the current administration when it comes to civil liberties - TIA and the Patriot Act seem to me to
be getting government pretty darn involved in my life.
Then there's that whole war thing. We don't want government involved in the lives of its citizens,
but the lives of other citizens, in other countries, that's okay? Even covert finagling with other
sovereign governments, that's okay?
It occurs to me that if conservatives truly believed in reduced government, they would have a lot
more in common with the Black Bloc than they would like to admit.
Sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into a rant about the right. I really only wanted to point out
what conservativism looks like through my eyes, and why.
What I don't get is how conservatives view liberals. Why is it such a bad thing to be a "bleeding
heart"? Is it just that some of the goals of progressives seem unrealistic? Or is it a fundamental
spiritual difference - some people believe in "every man for himself", while others believe in a
common good? Am I going too far to associate the GOP with Christian fundamentalism? I'm
sure it's less black and white than that, but sometimes it doesn't seem that way."
From the following Web site:
http://www.bloodredrose.com/peace/
