Replies

First off, social liberalism (”social libertarian”) ensures the survival of big government. The government grows when people cannot repress their own desire to sin, either through force of character or religious faith. Libertarians ignore the fact that social liberalism helps feed the very government they claim to oppose.

Secondly, the “theocracy” argument sounds like something from the left, not the right. Although there may be some conservatives who favor a theocracy, they are certainly a small minority—that is, unless you are calling any public expression of faith a theocracy.

Why do you think the other word for them is LIBERALterian?

The distinction I make between social liberalism and social libertarian, is “If you break it, you bought it”. I do not believe the Govt should be there to pick up people after they have screwed up their own life. Therefore, my beliefs cannot be characterize as “liberalism”.

First off, social liberalism (”social libertarian”) ensures the survival of big government. The government grows when people cannot repress their own desire to sin, either through force of character or religious faith. Libertarians ignore the fact that social liberalism helps feed the very government they claim to oppose.

Secondly, the “theocracy” argument sounds like something from the left, not the right. Although there may be some conservatives who favor a theocracy, they are certainly a small minority—that is, unless you are calling any public expression of faith a theocracy.

I don't think its an issue of religion thats the problem, I think its an issue of dogma.

We have a breed of relatively new conservatives who have a dogma that they ascribe to and feel no need to defend it on an intellectual basis. They are for things or against things because they are "on the list", not because they have thought hard.

I have spent years attacking my own political philosophies. I have listened to NPR regularly, I read DU, I read the liberal columnists. I question my philosophy on every issue and my mind is open to being changed by logic.

After all this thought, I have determined that conservative positions usually come out on top and make the most sense. Not always, but most of the time.

Conservatism has an intellectual basis. There is reasoning behind our philosophies. Conservatism is imminently defendable in a debate. It is not based on emotion.

But there are a breed of conservatives who want to make Conservatism an emotional philsophy that is the opposite of liberal emotionalism. Repeating our thoughtless mantra with more emotion than the liberals repeat their thoughtless mantra.

Sometimes I think these conservatives are starting to do this because they are afraid that the liberals will beat them in a logic fight. I suggest less dogma and emotion and more logic.

Or maybe, as one poster said, conservatives are getting politically lazy.

There is nothing to be afraid of, most conservative principles stand up very well in a debate if you properly arm yourself with logic. When you are so armed you can smile gently like Reagan did and leave foaming at the mouth dogma to the liberals.