Posted on 06/17/2007 12:24:13 AM PDT by kipita
Can anyone briefly describe the differences between American conservatives? I have many friends here in Europe who want to know and the most logical step would seem to be to establish different regions. I’ve chosen the South (including the bible belt), the East coast and the West coast cultural influences. Therefore……
1. South: God, guns and gays.
2. East Coast: British and Jewish influenced.
3. West Coast: Intellectual, libertarian and progressive.
Thanks!
“conservatives view life as a social contract between the dead, the living and the unborn”.
I don’t know who said it first.
Here is an interesting description of two types of conservatives. It doesn’t exactly answer your question but it is interesting.
The Long March of Newt Gingrich
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newtintwshtml/weyrich.html
Weyrich: Yes, he has a guiding vision. But I think it is one which will ultimately prove to be a problem for him because it's not based in truth. It is very technologically oriented. It is very much oriented not in the Judeo-Christian principles that are the only principles that work, but in some more nebulous notions of contemporary philosophers.
Thanks. I'll assume Newt Gingrich is a West coast conservative and Weyrich is a Southern conservative.
Liberals or Democrats tend to believe every problem can be fixed by expanding, or creating, a Govt program.
People say “ah but what about Moral issues”. Well what about them? On both Gay Marriage and Abortion the Left wants to use the Govt to impose their view of what is correct on everyone. The Right says “Um, NO the Govt should not impose a one size fits all view on everyone on those issues”.
The reason it gets confusing is that a loud vocal portion of the “Conservative” movement aren’t really Conservatives. They are Reactionaries.
You can recognize the Reactionaries. They are the ones who oppose any change ever. They never support anything, they merely complain about everything.
Well, as a scientist, the problem I have is that “……if your conservative, your conservative…” can be interpreted in many ways.
For example, E=MC2 simply means that E (energy) must be a large number because C2 (the speed of light squared) is a very large number. With this formula, we can understand many observed complexities and use this knowledge to benefit mankind (just think, we could provide enough electricity for the city of New York for 6 months with the energy that stored within a penny).
So, in this light, if we can define our beliefs very simply (like E=MC2) we can attempt to seek common ground with those who have similar beliefs and build a society in spite of those who “are violent, pig headed, immoral, unsupportive of our troops, hate America, and so on.”
Liberals or Democrats tend to believe every problem can be fixed by expanding, or creating, a Govt program.
I tend to agree. In short, Liberals believe man knows more than God and should thus manage mankind and conservatives believe in individual intelligence-morality (with Judeo-Christian values) without human hierarchy.
There seems to be a split among Conservative between those who have a religious base for their views on one end to those who share the other Conservatives suspicion of Govt but also reject the moral hierarchy imposed by Religion. So you have Libertarian/Conservatives on one end and Religious Conservatives on the other with the rest of Conservatives falling some where along that spectrum.
Then to make it even more confusing, you have people like Newt Gingrich. This is the latest wave of "Conservatives". People like Newt tend to be Libertarian when it comes to social issues. But at the same time Newt, like President Bush, is one of those "Govt Conservatives" who seems more interested in "fixing" Govt then in pruning it back.
You can tell these kinds of "Conservatives" because they tend to be very upset about Govt spending, UNLESS it something they want the Govt involved in (Trade, Immigration, etc. If it is doing something they want done, they have no problem at all expanding the scope and reach of the Govt.
So it would seem we have to come up with a new political spectrum since these people really do not really fit the term "Conservative" since they don't want to limit Govt so much as change what it is doing.
You can recognize the Reactionaries. They are the ones who oppose any change ever. They never support anything, they merely complain about everything."
You certainly have some strange political definitions, but I'm not at all surprised since your main criteria to qualify for being "conservative" seems to be support for RINOs and remaining a Bush-bot.
No, Newt is an army brat/college professor who represented the southern state of Georgia in the House.
Weyrich is from Wisconsin and is a born-again Christian. He founded the Heritage Foundation.
Personally support the federal government banning all abortion except for a BIG risk to life. This would be against a traditional conservative view--a libertarian one--but consider stopping the murder of millions, at least in this country to be a valid use of a strong government. If the United States had the power to ban such frivolous (and they are frivolous unless it is to preserve life) abortions globally, akin to the British Empire banning the slave trade, and eventually slavery in its empire, would support that, too.
Personally would probably fall more under a 'Southern' conservative heading than a 'Western' one, although a small trip to Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland about rounds up forays into the South.
Yeah, but the socialist and libertine Jimmy Carter is as southern as you can get.
You left out Midwest and Great Lakes conservatives (blue-collar, libertarian-minded, Chrysler-driving, domestic-beer-drinking gun-nuts like myself)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.