Replies

I am not sure why that question is important to you.

Since it is both a question as you have put it and a accusation as well, I would ask you a question.

What new ideas have been presented by conservatives that are less than 30 years old?

The answer is not relevant as the battles between conservatives and liberals go back to the dark ages, the inquisition days and even before that.

Liberals by their nature have fresher ideas. They are either wrong or damaging to society but they are indeed fresher than conservative ideas which are linked directly to what worked well in the past, even the long distant past.

So you question is not phrased properly. You should be asking who is right? Because the political group with the oldest ideas is hard to define as both have been battling for hearts and minds for 100s, or even thousands of years. The criteria for the battle is still the same.

So IMO, it's a flawed statement to say that the liberals ideas are old because so are ours...It's all been said before. Different people today, different technologies, different amount of data now but the fight is still the same..and for the same reasons.

I clipped this for Wikipedia from their definition of liberalism which I find to be essentially true but they don't go deep enough into the past. The point is that there are different perspectives and that social liberalism is fairly new and the result of longer term experiences and social changes in the Democracies of the West.

The original liberalism goes much farther back and deals more with issues of science, religion, modes of government, private property ownership and wealth.

The liberalism you are referring to is less than 100 years old and is only in the US and Britain. This is why you can watch Britain to see what will be coming here. It evolved from post WWII and continues today.

In Europe and North America, there was also the rise of social liberalism,[9][10] which is related with social democracy in Europe. As such, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[11] Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism, became the basis for the emerging school of right wing libertarian thought.[12] Today, liberal political parties remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on many countries (see Liberalism by country).

So when you ask me to tell you which ideas are newer or fresher, the answer has to be liberalism as it applies to the US. In Europe, classical liberalism might entail smaller government, free elections, lower taxes, which were taken up by conservatives in the US, so none of these ideas are new!

As I said, the proper question to pose is “who is right”.

Not sure who started the debate about liberals having old stale ideas, but this staleness only goes back to Roosevelt and the conservative counter arguments to Roosevelt’s liberalism are the same as they are today..

In short....”He was wrong.” “he grew Government” We want to make it smaller and more efficient, So these arguments too are just as old.

Last response is this....

To show how the political parties in the US have flipped since WWII when social liberalism (not classical liberalism) began to get a foothold in the US democrat party, I give you the example of Ronald Reagan who switched parties when the change began to become obvious. He was not the only one.

I give you the Dixiecrats in the south and any number of small but noticeable changes to which Bill Clinton was the last of a dying breed of classical liberals. That era is finished now.

What we have now is the use of social liberalism to use the countries wealth to essentially promise shares of it's treasury the people in order to buy votes to keep the party in power.

This is all fairly new and fresh in the political history of the US, but it occurred as far back as the days of congressman Daniel Boone. Conservatives were battling this then and now with the same tactics. And we lost then and now...

Modern Democracy's like ours were only expected to last 200 years. We have exceeded that. But you can see the handwriting on the wall. I am too old and have seen too much change to believe that we can, as conservatives, change the tide that will eventually destroy the financial health of this country and probably the entire West along with it. We already saw the prequel in 2007.

It's like waiting for paint to dry for me and I might live long enough to see it, but the die is cast. It will happen..

So someone has to be here to pick up the pieces and lead the country back to functional society. That's what is important now...IMO.