Have Conservatives and Liberals swithced roles?

Originally Posted by Fellowship

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

Originally Posted by Fellowship

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

Originally Posted by Fellowship

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

Originally Posted by audiopollution

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

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Originally Posted by JimDreamworx

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

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

What would have really constituted a conservative?

Originally Posted by JimDreamworx

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

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

What would have really constituted a conservative?

Originally Posted by franksargent

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).

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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.

Originally Posted by midwinter

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?

Originally Posted by vinea

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.