Have Conservatives and Liberals swithced roles?

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
Ok I know that is quite the odd premise for a subject of a thread but hear me out a bit...



I think it could be safe to say that in certain areas it would "seem" that conservatives and liberals have swithced what you would naturally expect their roll to be.



Have you ever noticed that the ones who in times of certain questionable wars who call for peace are the left wing liberals? Peace is something you would expect conservative Christians to champion for example but we often see the left side of the political spectrum for the most part be the ones who champion peace when it comes to foreign policy and questionable wars.



hmmmmm strange if you ask me. and then you consider that the conservatives are the ones that tend to want war... all the while going to Church on Sunday where it would normally be taught that we should love our enemy and learn things like "Blessed are the Peacemakers". That being said conservatives seem to brush aside such teachings and champion wars more so than left wing liberals who champion peace... I find that odd.



Another area where I find ideas of what is thought to be progressive and not so progressive seemingly reversed is in the area of methods of food production. Many view people who buy organic food as "hippies" who are known to mostly be left leaning. But when you think about this do you not find it a bit odd to consider that when left leaning people support organic food methods what they are really supporting is a very traditional system of food production. As a matter of fact they snub the very idea that modern conventional pesticide and GMO crop use is good. They don't go for the "progress" of modern agriculture methods instead longing for tradition. Where on the other side we see many on the right of the political spectum in a smug manner trump up the "progress" of pesticides, GMO crops and synthetic fertilizers.



Strange that the progressives are for tradition and the conservatives (sometimes defined as not liking change) actually embrace the "progress" as they see it of modern agriculture methods.



In the area of abortion you find liberals who normally are for social equity and social investment for all such as concepts like universal health care coverage, quality education for all and their stance on issues like animal cruelty seemingly on the wrong side of the issue claiming it to be "progressive" to champion the idea of letting a mother elect to kill her unborn child. Where on the right side of the political spectrum you find people who actually advocate alternatives for this potential abortion situation. Ideas from the right include things like adoption where another member of society can care for this unwanted child if the mother can not afford to support the child. Right wingers turn to society for once on an issue (It Takes a Village) kind of an idea... Again I find this strange.. Where conservatives usually have the mindset that everyone is on their own.. go get a job don't use welfare etc.. they take on a social concern with the matter of abortion. Conversly left wingers "progressives" support the seemingly backwards, cruel act of abortion and could care less for once that society at large has tools to help with the matter.



Please share your thoughts..



Fellows
«1

Comments

  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post


    Ok I know that is quite the odd premise for a subject of a thread but hear me out a bit...



    I think it could be safe to say that in certain areas it would "seem" that conservatives and liberals have swithced what you would naturally expect their roll to be.



    Have you ever noticed that the ones who in times of certain questionable wars who call for peace are the left wing liberals? Peace is something you would expect conservative Christians to champion for example but we often see the left side of the political spectrum for the most part be the ones who champion peace when it comes to foreign policy and questionable wars.



    hmmmmm strange if you ask me. and then you consider that the conservatives are the ones that tend to want war... all the while going to Church on Sunday where it would normally be taught that we should love our enemy and learn things like "Blessed are the Peacemakers". That being said conservatives seem to brush aside such teachings and champion wars more so than left wing liberals who champion peace... I find that odd.



    Another area where I find ideas of what is thought to be progressive and not so progressive seemingly reversed is in the area of methods of food production. Many view people who buy organic food as "hippies" who are known to mostly be left leaning. But when you think about this do you not find it a bit odd to consider that when left leaning people support organic food methods what they are really supporting is a very traditional system of food production. As a matter of fact they snub the very idea that modern conventional pesticide and GMO crop use is good. They don't go for the "progress" of modern agriculture methods instead longing for tradition. Where on the other side we see many on the right of the political spectum in a smug manner trump up the "progress" of pesticides, GMO crops and synthetic fertilizers.



    Strange that the progressives are for tradition and the conservatives (sometimes defined as not liking change) actually embrace the "progress" as they see it of modern agriculture methods.



    In the area of abortion you find liberals who normally are for social equity and social investment for all such as concepts like universal health care coverage, quality education for all and their stance on issues like animal cruelty seemingly on the wrong side of the issue claiming it to be "progressive" to champion the idea of letting a mother elect to kill her unborn child. Where on the right side of the political spectrum you find people who actually advocate alternatives for this potential abortion situation. Ideas from the right include things like adoption where another member of society can care for this unwanted child if the mother can not afford to support the child. Right wingers turn to society for once on an issue (It Takes a Village) kind of an idea... Again I find this strange.. Where conservatives usually have the mindset that everyone is on their own.. go get a job don't use welfare etc.. they take on a social concern with the matter of abortion. Conversly left wingers "progressives" support the seemingly backwards, cruel act of abortion and could care less for once that society at large has tools to help with the matter.



    Please share your thoughts..



    Fellows



    What does it mean 'switched' roles?



    Personally I cannot remember, think or conceive of a time when Conservatives (read: right-wingers) were any different than now.



    Certainly in modern history - let's say the lifespan of the US - it has been left-wingers who were the 'doves' and right-wingers who were the 'hawks' - and before some wiseguy invokes Stalin, I am not saying ALL lefties were peaceniks but I am saying that where there were doves they were invariably left-wingers. Always.



    Before this time I guess there was not a left/right political divide but if one looks t the characteristics of the oppressors throughout this period (say from Ghengis Khan through Tamerlane to the Inquisition) then again, the values are purely the preserve of what we know to be right-wing 'values'; ie racism, Empire-building, suppression of opposition through rule of fear, Colonialism, expansion of 'markets' and exploitation of workforces and other's assets etc.



    Clearly this is borne out by a consideration of art and literature. I cannot think of a valid right-wing work of stature - certainly not a polemical one. Heidegger was a bit of a Nazi and Celine and Pound were utter fascists but that is about it.



    The left have always had a monopoly on this from PIcasso's Guernica to Orwell's 1984; it is always the barbarians trashing things (right-wingers) and always the artists opposing through creativity (lefties).



    Re Christianity; clearly the Christians who take Jesus as a model have always been a minority stream within the religion as a whole - from day one.



    When did the Church start massacring and killing people? Less than 200 years after Christ. Once you get beyond Christ himself, the Apostles and the Jerusalem Church, Paul and the Asia Minor Churches it's oppression all the way.



    Any 'switching' kicked in right there imo and 2000 years of it makes it 'the norm'....
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
  • fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    segovius



    I may not have been clear enough when I said "switched roles". What I mean to say is that in view of the overall platform of those on the left or the overall platform of those on the right it seems that on some matters the prevailing guidence of their political slant take a back seat to the stance on issues like I mention as examples in my opening post.



    I am not suggesting that people have changed their views over time at some point. I am sorry for that confusion.



    I still maintain there is a sort of disconnect with some of the political views of some who call themselves a conservative or a liberal.



    For those of us who do not wear badges of such labels this is not a problem. But there are I would argue some inconsistencies with some of the stances of those who do badge themselves a liberal or conservative.



    This is just the way I see it.



    Fellows
  • segoviussegovius Posts: 9,872member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post


    I may not have been clear enough when I said "switched roles". What I mean to say is that in view of the overall platform of those on the left or the overall platform of those on the right it seems that on some matters the prevailing guidence of their political slant take a back seat to the stance on issues like I mention as examples in my opening post.



    I am not suggesting that people have changed their views over time at some point. I am sorry for that confusion.



    I still maintain there is a sort of disconnect with some of the political views of some who call themselves a conservative or a liberal.



    For those of us who do not wear badges of such labels this is not a problem. But there are I would argue some inconsistencies with some of the stances of those who do badge themselves a liberal or conservative.



    This is just the way I see it.



    Fellows



    Ah...my mistake.... apologies.



    I suppose that many - maybe all - human systems start out well intentioned and aiming to better humanity but human nature being what it is then things just get corrupted.



    This is why we need something 'super-human' (I would say 'divine' but we don't want any knees jerking do we?) imo if there is to be any change at all - we are just too prone to deterioration.



    But that's another story
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post


    Ok I know that is quite the odd premise for a subject of a thread but hear me out a bit...



    I think it could be safe to say that in certain areas it would "seem" that conservatives and liberals have swithced what you would naturally expect their roll to be.



    Have you ever noticed that the ones who in times of certain questionable wars who call for peace are the left wing liberals? Peace is something you would expect conservative Christians to champion for example but we often see the left side of the political spectrum for the most part be the ones who champion peace when it comes to foreign policy and questionable wars.



    hmmmmm strange if you ask me. and then you consider that the conservatives are the ones that tend to want war... all the while going to Church on Sunday where it would normally be taught that we should love our enemy and learn things like "Blessed are the Peacemakers". That being said conservatives seem to brush aside such teachings and champion wars more so than left wing liberals who champion peace... I find that odd.



    It isn't strange at all. Neocons are the liberal wing of the Republican Party. Bush has shown himself to be very liberal in terms of government growth, out of control spending, and creating entirely new entitlement programs.



    As my sig notes, there are still liberals and neo-cons calling for us to go into Darfur today. Also anyone who thinks leftist elements are only pacifists do not recall Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, etc all on the Clinton watch. Carter didnt do much and was tossed for precisely that reason. Before that we have to go back to LBJ and Kennedy which of course means Vietnam.



    So what has happened to the pacifist or isolationist segment of the Republican Party? The paleo-cons if you please, they have been called racist for not wanting to intervene in world affairs. This is why I point out that the statements of Edwards, Obama and Clinton (H) do not reflect the end of Pax Americana. They only claim they will execute Pax Americana in a more competent fashion than Bush has done. If you get a Pat Buchanan out there, someone who declares that America ought worry about America and get its nose out of the business of others, he is called an outright racist for not caring enough the global atrocity of the week that as the lone superpower and world cop, we must rush in and fix to show we "care."



    Quote:

    Another area where I find ideas of what is thought to be progressive and not so progressive seemingly reversed is in the area of methods of food production. Many view people who buy organic food as "hippies" who are known to mostly be left leaning. But when you think about this do you not find it a bit odd to consider that when left leaning people support organic food methods what they are really supporting is a very traditional system of food production. As a matter of fact they snub the very idea that modern conventional pesticide and GMO crop use is good. They don't go for the "progress" of modern agriculture methods instead longing for tradition. Where on the other side we see many on the right of the political spectum in a smug manner trump up the "progress" of pesticides, GMO crops and synthetic fertilizers.



    Strange that the progressives are for tradition and the conservatives (sometimes defined as not liking change) actually embrace the "progress" as they see it of modern agriculture methods.



    I think the issue here is more to do with cost. You have a lot of snobby leftists who endorse methods that may yield better food, but at a substantial cost increase. You do have farmers and farms attempting organic on a large and cost effective scale but then you get into these pseudo discussions and it appears to end up more a means of being uppity than just endorsing good nutrition. You here statements like "well it was grown using organic methods, but the farm was more than 40 miles from the city center, so I can't endorse that." To me, that just seems petty. I've very much liked your points on cane sugar versus corn syrup but I don't see left or right working exclusively for or against that.



    Quote:

    In the area of abortion you find liberals who normally are for social equity and social investment for all such as concepts like universal health care coverage, quality education for all and their stance on issues like animal cruelty seemingly on the wrong side of the issue claiming it to be "progressive" to champion the idea of letting a mother elect to kill her unborn child. Where on the right side of the political spectrum you find people who actually advocate alternatives for this potential abortion situation. Ideas from the right include things like adoption where another member of society can care for this unwanted child if the mother can not afford to support the child. Right wingers turn to society for once on an issue (It Takes a Village) kind of an idea... Again I find this strange.. Where conservatives usually have the mindset that everyone is on their own.. go get a job don't use welfare etc.. they take on a social concern with the matter of abortion. Conversly left wingers "progressives" support the seemingly backwards, cruel act of abortion and could care less for once that society at large has tools to help with the matter.



    I'm tired. Let's see how the first two go.



    Nick
  • audiopollutionaudiopollution Posts: 3,226member
    I see what you did there, with the thread title.



  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    As my sig notes, there are still liberals and neo-cons calling for us to go into Darfur today. Also anyone who thinks leftist elements are only pacifists do not recall Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, etc all on the Clinton watch. Carter didnt do much and was tossed for precisely that reason. Before that we have to go back to LBJ and Kennedy which of course means Vietnam.



    Oh, hell. The Democratic Party has given America every war in modern history, with the exception of Bush's Iraq folly.



    And your list actually raises a question with me: weren't US interventions in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia all successes?
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,166member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by audiopollution View Post


    I see what you did there, with the thread title.







    LOLcats!



    Anyway, those of us outside the Republican/Democrat trap (Libertarians and the like) hold a different point of view, which oddly enough is gaining more traction than at any point in recent memory... which can only be good for everyone.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
  • formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Despite my reluctance to follow Artman's latest masterpiece, I'd like to offer up Henry Ford as a highly visible example of a right-wing Christian pacifist.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Well I was watching Alan Greenspan on " Meet The Press " this Sunday and they talked a bit about his statement that Bill Clinton was the best republican he'd ever seen. This was because mainly Clinton had sensible views and good pratices with the economy. Something I'm sure SDW would disagree with but you'll excuse me if I trust Greenspan over him.



    But are they switching roles?



    Not really. I do believe people tend to represent an older more realistic / mature view on the liberal side than they used to but it's the same set of values.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post






    Now I know why I love pussy, err I mean cats. Great find Artman!



    But on topic, if you really think about it is the nature conservatives versus the social conservatives.
  • jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,060member
    While I think back on poli-sci and classic liberalism:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism



    What would have really constituted a conservative?
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,166member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post


    While I think back on poli-sci and classic liberalism:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism



    What would have really constituted a conservative?



    www.ronPaul2008.com



  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post


    While I think back on poli-sci and classic liberalism:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism



    What would have really constituted a conservative?



    What you refer to worked well in them olden days, with low population densities, and people WERE much more independent and jack-or-all-trade types, than the high population densities and modern technological and individual specialization of our modern global interdependent societies.



    I'm currently learning how to make fire and stone age implements, just in case the SHTF (e. g. The Rapture).
  • SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 24,166member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    What you refer to worked well in them olden days, with low population densities, and people WERE much more independent and jack-or-all-trade types, than the high population densities and modern technological and individual specialization of our modern global interdependent societies.



    I'm currently learning how to make fire and stone age implements, just in case the SHTF (e. g. The Rapture).



    I'd say a 'Rapture' is off the table. Religious fanatics who are openly ignorant of biblical history have been warning the sheeple of this for a long, long, long time. Learning how to do something for the joy of educating yourself is not harmful, but expecting the world to end just leads to alienation and paranoia.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    I'd say a 'Rapture' is off the table. Religious fanatics who are openly ignorant of biblical history have been warning the sheeple of this for a long, long, long time. Learning how to do something for the joy of educating yourself is not harmful, but expecting the world to end just leads to alienation and paranoia.



    But seriously, wassup with the secular reality shows Man vs. Wild and Survivorman?



    Methinks "The Rapture" will happen any day now!
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Not a fan of role-playing.
  • vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    As my sig notes, there are still liberals and neo-cons calling for us to go into Darfur today. Also anyone who thinks leftist elements are only pacifists do not recall Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, etc all on the Clinton watch. Carter didnt do much and was tossed for precisely that reason. Before that we have to go back to LBJ and Kennedy which of course means Vietnam.



    Somalia was on Bush's watch actually. When it happened I laughed, shook my head and told my wife "Man, that guy sure knows how to piss in someone's cheerios".



    As it happened it wasn't as complete a disaster as it might have been. I, and probably every other conservative, expected it to end badly. Arguably it did but in many ways his exit was forced so you can't entirely lay that debacle on him, ether the entrance or the exit.



    Vietnam started with Eisenhower and his Domino Theory. Kennedy continued with this theory and well the rest is history.
  • vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Oh, hell. The Democratic Party has given America every war in modern history, with the exception of Bush's Iraq folly.



    And your list actually raises a question with me: weren't US interventions in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia all successes?



    Depending on what you mean by modern history, the Spanish American war (one of our few colonial wars) was by McKinley.



    The Gulf War was also Bush. The US interventions were not all successes (Somalia) and you're lumping those in as "wars" then you also need to include Panama, Greneda, and the Bay of Pigs. Also Afhganistan unless you're lumping that in as part of GWOT rather than the Invasion of Iraq/OIF/whatever.



    WWI and WWII can't really be laid on the doorsteps of the US since we were johnny come relucantly to both. Republican or Democrat there was but one response to Pearl. Likewise Afghanistan and 9/11.
Sign In or Register to comment.