I beginning to get very suspicious of the dichotomy: socially liberal and

[AP]

economically conservative.

I firmly believe the whole game is economics. Look at Bush. His primary goal is to shift all the burdens of supporting the US economy to the poor and middle class, and all the benefits to the wealthy. And they do it through very stealthy strategies, which most people don't understand -- eg, taxes (primarily), defunding the SBA, using tax money and poor people's lives to help create a US oil monopoly in Iraq, busting unions...anything that makes life harder for the middle and working class or for small businesses, they do.

Just about everything else in my opinion is a wedge issue. Even the war is a wedge issue that is meant to drive fearful, hyper-patriotice people into voting Republican.

And what does it mean to be economically liberal? In the 80s it meant that you might have wanted to overtax people to pay for social programs in a bad economy. But NOBODY wants to do that anymore. Beginning with Clinton, Democrats said, we want to go to the root of poverty -- if you create a stoking, fair, competitive economy, and you tax fairly the income produced from that fair economy, you can provide a social safety net which helps people contribute and compete, and you won't have to worry about overtaxing people in bad economies. That's what economically liberal means now.

To me, economically conservative means you're going to cut taxes, and cut services, and make a world that rewards wealth, and burdens the poor even more.

Notwithstanding this post 80s dichotomy, you look at somebody like Arnold. He's trying to win a California election on the premise that he's socially liberal, and economically undefinable, but probably conservative. Well, who the hell cares if he's socially liberal. Would anyone REALLY vote for him if he were 100% socially liberal on every social issue litmust test, but created an economy which turned everyone but the top 1% into wage slaves? How the hell is any oppressed social minority going to assert their democratic rights if they have no money and have to work 70 hours a week to get ahead?

[glarius]

1. Seems to me he's more like 100% opportunistic!

:)

[PurpHaze69]

2. And the masses are

asses my friend. They keep biting into the bone that Bush throws to them. They ignore the fact that their 401k's have lost about 40k over the past 2 years, just as long as they keep those tax refund checks for $400 rolling in. Never mind the fact that these idiots now will need to work more years to make up for the shortfall in their retirement funds, they have $400 in their pockets. What dunder heads. No wonder Bush's ratings have been so high.

[newyawker99]

37. Hi PurpHaze69!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[wtmusic]

3. 'Economically conservative' is a label

that can mean many things...

If it means balancing a budget then I'm a redneck.

If it means a flat tax or cutting social services, forget it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. It's a code word for pro-corporate

I think it used to mean you didn't want to run a budget deficit, which of course is good policy. Now it's used to mask the agenda of cheap labor conservatives, who want to cut social services, privatize public resources, and outsource jobs to totalitarian third world regimes.

[wtmusic]

6. Yeah, except Dean calls himself

a 'fiscal conservative'.

That gets some people worried, and unnecessarily so.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. same difference

Dean's pro-NAFTA, pro-corporate trade policies are well known by me and everyone on the forum. Perhaps you could post his one interview about "fair trade" again?

[wtmusic]

15. So you're equating fair trade

with economic conservatism.

Call it what you wish.

[ryharrin]

45. It wasn't just one interview.

It's an integral part of his economic platform. Check out the AFL/CIO forum from a few weeks ago. He talked about it there too.

[AP]

10. I believe Keynes liked a deficit when you

were using it to leverage growth.

The conservatives don't like to leverage growht if the growth is going to be spread among the middle class. If you get wealthy and comfortable enough that you have free time, you might be able to hire a lawyer if your rights have been violated. You might be able to spend a littel time and money asserting your democratic rights, or educating yourself, or comparison shopping.

[IrateCitizen]

43. Keynes advocated spurring growth through deficit spending

His theory was based on the belief that the private sector could not adequately respond to an economic downturn in time, so it was the role of the government to jump-start the economy through massive spending. This, of course, would cause a quick and hefty deficit. However, Keynes also believed that in times of strong economic activity, the government should run a surplus, saving excess capital for when it needed it to head off a downturn.

Such a policy would probably do us good right now, at least according to The Nation columnist William Greider. If massive amounts of capital were pumped into public works to upgrade our transportation network, electrical grid and crumbling educational infrastructure, we could probably shake loose of the current slump. And even if it didn't completely work, at least we'd be left with an upgraded national infrastructure (rather than throwing money away on wasteful weapons system and high-bracket tax cuts). But it would require running short-term deficits even higher than those anticipated under the Bush administration, something that no Democrat is willing to do right now, as the Democratic Party has really become the party of fiscal austerity and balanced budgets.

[AP]

21. Exactly

People still read it as "less government and lower taxes" but I think the rest of the equation should be perfectly clear.

[AP]

8. I think the meaning has been firmed up in the last 4 years

thanks to Clinton's thesis of economically liberal, and Bush's antithesis.

I think Clinton defined it as I did above -- the Keynsian way, You spread money among the middle class, the economy stokes along, and social programs are defined as a safety net which allow people and the economy to strive higher, rather than as gifts to the huge underclass that a crappy economy creates that we give out instead of giving people a society in which they can actually get ahead with a little work.

And Bush's antithesis to that -- the new definition of economically conservative, which is, no doubt, Arnold's as well -- is that we have to create a two-tier society. One tier is the permanently rich, and the second is the permanent underclass who will bear all the burden of paying for a society which works to further entrench the wealthy in power. Oh, but some of us are social liberals.

[StandWatie]

4. Arnold would probably get a great ADA rating if he was a democrat..

He's a perfect DLC centrist which is why I don't really understand the hate.

[AP]

12. Only if you give no weight to what really makes a conservative--

economics.

[Liberal Classic]

7. Let me pose a couple of simple questions

Let's say for the sake of argument that I am not opposed to homosexualty and I have no issues with such people in the workplace or the military, or as the couple next door. If such a thing is true, must I also believe in gun control? If I am not againsts gays having the same rights as the rest of us, must I necessarily believe that the second amendment is a collective right, not an individual one.

Also for the sake of argument, if I believe in liberal immigration policies, must I necessarily believe in the expansion of AmeriCorps? Or, if I believe in the regulation of marijuana as the same for liquor, must I necessarily believe in tax-payer funded abortion?

The answer to these questions is no, it is not a dichotomy to hold socially liberal political positions yet not always be in favor of higher taxes and more government regulation of business, nor is it an execercise in doublethink.

Why do I have to believe the same as you? Can I not hold my own opinions and not be considered mentially deficient? The left wing of the political spectrum puts great stock in tolerance for the differences of others, however, this seems to go out of the window one you have been identified as a class enemy. However, some people seem to hold the same old jingoistic us or them mentality, believing I am either with them on higher taxes or I am the enemy, while at the same time condemning the right wing for the very same thing. This strikes me as being somewhat hypocritical.

[AP]

14. Higher taxes doesn't even address the whole issue.

Are you for shifting the benefits of society to the rich, and the burdens to the poor? Are you for a world in which wealth is rewarded, but not work? Are you for a world in which, if you're poor or middle class, the deck is stacked against the possibility of you moving up the wealth scale, and if you're rich, no matter how lazy and worthless you are to society, you'll never go down the scale?

If the Republicans could do that by raising everyones taxes a little, they do it in a heartbeat. The fact is, regressive income tax is one big tool to achieve those goals. (And note that progressive taxation -- which should be the liberal cornerstone -- would probably lower taxes on 94% of Americans, and raise taxes on 6% -- which is what Bustamante is saying he'll do).

[redeye]

16. Those're not the only points of economic consevratism

Sometimes, as in social and personal issues, it's very easy to construct a liberal-conservative scale. On economic issues it's not so hard as in foreign policy and itnernational relations, but still not so clear as social issues.

Basically, the continuum on economics is:

--Socialist--------Liberal------Moderate---Conservative-------Libertarian----

Conservative positions include not only agreement with inequality, but also low taxes on everyone, small government on everything but the military (which's a big question mark), monetaristic policies, preference of supply-side to demand-side economics, balanced budgets, work as a positive end in itself, and personal responsibility on most things.

Liberal positions, conversely, have to do not only with the vague term that is equality, but more specifically with guaranteeing equal opportunity, Keynesian policies, slight preference of demand-side to supply-side economics, high government spending on programs such as social security and unemployment benefits, more collective responsibility (emphasis on more), and work as a necessary evil.

[AP]

25. What I'm arguing is that, today, it IS easy to place economic

policy on a liberal-conservative scale.

And people shouldn't be fooled by politicians who say they're economically conservative.

Just aske them which way the money is flowing in their economy. Is it flowing to the middle class? Or is it flowing to people who are already wealthy? Are we talking Keynes or Friedman? Are we talking Stiglitz or Summers? Are we talking progressive or regressive tax (which is the reality the high tax/low tax false dichotomy tries to occlude)?

[AP]

26. What I'm arguing is that, today, it IS easy to place economic

policy on a liberal-conservative scale.

And people shouldn't be fooled by politicians who say they're economically conservative.

Just aske them which way the money is flowing in their economy. Is it flowing to the middle class? Or is it flowing to people who are already wealthy? Are we talking Keynes or Friedman? Are we talking Stiglitz or Summers? Are we talking progressive or regressive tax (which is the reality the high tax/low tax false dichotomy tries to occlude)?

[Liberal Classic]

22. How can someone be against "the benefits of society?"

Hard to argue against that. If I say that I'd like to hold the line on taxes all of a sudden I'm against the benefits of society. :)

I wasn't trying to address the issue of taxes specifically, what I was saying is that there is nothing wrong with being in favor of liberal social policies yet remain committed to keeping taxes reasonably low.

You're right that Republicans raise taxes when they can. Both the Democrats and Republicans love to spend our money for us, just on different things.

[AP]

30. The issue is not whether you have them, but who gets them

Like I said elsewhere, low vs high taxes is a false dichotomy. The Republicans call themselves the low tax party, but they've raised taxes on 90% of all Americans. If you look at all taxes collected at all levels of government, 90% of Americans probably pay more than they did 10 years ago because the burden is shifting to the middle and working class and off the wealthy.

The savings and loan crisis alone shifted BILLIONS of dollars to the very wealthy, and middle class taxpayers are paying 1000s of dollars a year for that, and they'll be paying for it for a long time.

Enron made millions off of CA that went to buying homes in Florida for insiders, and CA taxpayers will be paying for that for years.

And they'll be paying out of increasingly regressive taxese, and it was a shift of burdens and a shift of benefits, and it is the equivalent of paying higher taxes.

[papau]

11. economically conservative means you're going to cut taxes,and cut service?

NOPE

It means do not pass a great deal of debt onto your grandchildren.

nothing more than that.

[AP]

20. exactly. It's shifting burdens and benefits.

It's a transfer of wealth to the wealthy today and FROM tomorrows poor people (who will be your children unless you're in the top 1% of asset owners today).

[slackmaster]

27. It also means making sure money is spent wisely

And not wasted on waste like administrative overhead, excessively high prices by vendors (e.g. $600 hammers to the DoD).

[AP]

31. That's the Keynsian angle. Debt is good if it's being invested

in things which will make society wealthier in the future. Leverage growth. That's what people do when they go into debt for an education or to buy a house.

Bad debt is the kind of debt Bush is putting us into. We're going into debt because he's transferring trillions of dollars to his cronies, and that money will NEVER trickle down. And Iraq is a sinkhole meant to get Haliburton hugely wealthy so that they can uncompetitively control the oil industry, which will inevtably lead to higher consumer prices (which is basically the equivalent of a taxpayer-financed subsidization of a future monopoly which will rape you in the 'free' market. They get you coming and going in this administration; they rip you off in the public sector and in the private sector.)

[slackmaster]

41. Yes, but we still need a couple of guarantees

Leverage growth. That's what people do when they go into debt for an education or to buy a house.

I have no problem with borrowing money and investing it in something that will pay off, but society still needs guarantees that 1) The borrowed money is spent wisely, and 2) We don't incur more debt than we can handle.

That's all we fiscal conservatives are saying.

[AP]

44. The guarantee would be in having an informed public debate

and having the ideas that most people think will result in growth become law.

What kind of guarantees are you imagining?

[aquart]

69. Exactly. Means don't waste the good you've got.

The air, the land, the earth, the water. The obligation is to hand it on better than you found it.

Debt and dirt don't do it.

[redeye]

13. First, let's agree on one thing:

A libertarian "paradise" (i.e. the top 0.5% own everybody else) and a country where everyone has a right to a job but has no right to free speech, sex, abortion, assembly, or privacy both suck. So economics is definitely not the sole thing because George "a dictatorship would be easier" Bush is as socially conservative as he is economically reactionary.

Second, if you have the benefits of 50% of an economically liberal platform and 100% of a socially liberal one then you're in much better a shape than if you have those of 100% economically and 50% socially liberal. Well, sure, in the former case you won't get welfare payments for more than a year or so over a lifetime and will have a hard time paying for your mortgage because of high interest rates, but you will have the right to have sex with any adult who consents as well as the access to free information.

Third, as long as freedoms of thought, of speech, from religion, of assembly and association, of information, and from privacy restrictions are kept, economically conservative structures will naturally tend liberal (and btw, by liberal I don't mean Leninist but moderately capitalistic - with welfare, moderate taxes, and minimum wages, but without a command economy or confiscatory taxation).

[AP]

19. Don't get me wrong.

I'm socially liberal as all get out. But I get worried when everything is defined in terms of the social issues, and people don't realize how it's all worthless if you're just a wage slave, or if there this hegemony which totally controls your life and destiny, while denying you the fruits of your labor and your economic autonomy. The illusion of choice in the marketplace of beliefs is the opiate of the masses, perhaps.

I would take the 100% economic liberal program and 50% social liberal program candidate any day--because, if I'm in control of my economic destiny, nobody is in control of me socially. But, you know, this isn't even a choice you have to make as a Democrat. Cuomo and Kucinich have some socially conservative views, but they never were dumb enough to try to legislate them. Most Democrats who have personal views which are conservative are able to draw the line between their publice role and their private beliefs. And if they don't, they rarely are 100% economically liberal, so I'm not voting for them anyway (or only voting for them if they're the best of a bunch of bad choices).

[redeye]

23. Gephardt is close to 100% economic but sucks socially

An besides, even if you're guaranteed a wage of 10 dollars an hour if you work, or the equivalent of 7 an hour if you don't, and even if the taxes are progressive, then it has no effect if your body is rigged with chips that ensure that you don't have sex except to produce children or if you have all those benefits only if you're a straight Christian white male.

[AP]

32. Gephardt is 100% labor. That isn't the same thing.

I've never heard Gephardt say one thing about progressive taxation.

And that rigged with chip thing -- if I have economic power, that will never happen. Nobody will ever take the rights from a middle class that's wealthy enough to assert their rights. I have a theory that there's a watershed point in the rising wealth of a society -- when a critical mass of people have enough disposable income to pay for 10 hours of a lawyer's time, you see an exponential increase in growth of social justice.

[redeye]

40. Would you mind proving your theory...

...or at least substantiating it with anything? I am very skeptical of connections of the type you make and assertions such as "X is the substructure of society, everything else is just a superstructure."

[AP]

46. It's a theory based on obeservation

America has a lot of infratstrucure which gives people who have access to it a great deal of due process and equal protection rights. The problem is that access to justice tends to be expensive and time consuming. If you have the time and the money, you can usually assert your rights.

In other countries which don't yet have the infrastructure, if you have the time and money you can influence government and society and crate the infrastructure.

[dsc]

58. That is just plain false

There are many economic liberals, including Kucinich, who did and in many cases still do, legislate their socially conservative agenda. David Bonior is another example. Heck so is the Catholic heirarchy.

[redeye]

60. The BNP in Britain...

...are very left-authoritarian on the political compass. They support the right to work, welfare, etc., for hetero whites only, support "law and order," and so on and so forth.

[dsc]

61. I admit to never having heard of them

but to me the Communists are another pretty good example. Gays and women did poorly indeed in many of those places.

[AP]

67. When were ther communist governments? 30 years ago?

I don't remember gays doing well anywhere 30 years ago.

[AP]

66. the BNP are avowed fascists.

I don't know what political compass you're using. And I don't know what they have to do with this discussion.

Any pretense the BNP make towards favoring welfare, or whatever, is just to attract people to their racist orthodoxy which is 99.9% of their message. It's sort of like Hitler exploiting economic misery with superficially left policies early on in order to get his extreme right-wing racist, and corporate profit friendly fascism in the back door (the latter or which I don't even think the BNP cares about -- they just hate anyone who isn't white).

[Terwilliger]

17. its not possible

being socially conscious demands that you spare no expense in reconstitution of the community...if you want to save a dollar-2.98 on the cost so we can balance that against the profit margin, then you can keep your money.

[slackmaster]

29. "Sparing no expense" is a sure way to fiscal Hell

To keep the government from spending itself and future generations of taxpayers into the poor house it's essential to treat most expenditures of public funds with the same kind of stewardship that characterizes a well-run business.

Frivolous expense MUST be spared. I say spend the money, but spend it wisely and DON'T SPEND MONEY WE DON'T HAVE or cannot reasonably finance.

[AP]

34. See, this is where the real public policy debate should

be in America. Every 'investment' or expenditure of public funds should be debated on this point: is this an investment creates social wealth, or is this merely a transfer of wealth to people who don't need it, and therefore it reduces social wealth?

And I disagree with one point you have. We SHOULD spend money we don't have if that money is going to create a tremendous return on the investment. The government is in debt today. But if you could issue bonds to raise funds to invest in, oh, say, the development of a solar powered flying car, the social wealth created from that investment would be so immense, it would be mad not to invest the money.

[slackmaster]

42. I think you picked an atrocious example but generally agree

We don't need flying cars, solar-powered or otherwise, in a world filled with morons who can barely drive a terrestrial car.

[Terwilliger]

50. way to change the subject, slack

fact of the matter is, fiscal conservatism is what I advocate...spend the money on THE RIGHT THINGS...not on unlimited credit cards for use by the defense department

[Terwilliger]

49. thats all well and good in your capitalist system

so, why are Democrats continually labelled as fiscally liberal? Because they think its more important to spend money and schools and social programs?

The Repukes in California considered ELIMINATING THE ENTIRE FRESHMAN COURSE FROM THE UC SYSTEM. Is that fiscally conservative?

[jos]

18. Agree

I've thought it bullshit for years. It's another way of saying you're a DLCer, or a Republican leaning independent.

[Cat Atomic]

24. It's a response to the religious element in the Republican Party.

At least that's what I think. Alot of "old school" Republicans have been uncomfortable with their party's focus on getting wacky religious fundamentalists on board.

I think that, for many Republicans, things like prayer in school and abortion are simply non-issues. They like low taxes for the upper class and no public assistance for the poor.

They're still dick heads, they just want to make it clear that they aren't *religious* dick heads.

[AP]

35. I think Republican wedge issues have to vary by geographical region

In Alabama, maybe, Republican play to the wedge of issue of religion, because there are a lot of poor, religious people who should be voting in their best economic interests for Democrats. Relifion is used to get them to vote against their best economic interests.

In California, religion works to the Republican's detriment. So their wedge issue is that they're pretending they're social liberals to peel off people who think a guy who's a movie star and posed naked and did some gay stuff maybe, and is married to a Kennedy means he'll appeal to some people who, again, should be voting for Democrats if they were voting their pocketbooks.

And since it's ALWAYS about money for the Republicans, you should ALWAYS vote your pocketbook.

[newyawker99]

38. Hi Cat Atomic!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ProfessorGAC]

28. Your Penultimate Paragraph is The Problem

Economic conservatism does not mean cutting taxes and cutting services. That's fiscal conservatism.

Economic conservatism means not introducing legislation for which there are no source of funds. True economic conservatism does a cost/benefit analysis that results in a taxation level that will cover all the costs of providing gov't services, as long as the benefit to society outweighs that cost.

I don't care what you've heard liars like George Will or Chris Hitchens or Andy Sullivan say about their economic conservatism. These guys know NOTHING about economics. They can't even accurately describe their own positions. (Well, in Hitchens' case, it changes every 15 months.)

You're dichotomy is a false one. There is nothing inconsistent about being a social liberal and an economic conservative. The dichotomy would be being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. In the former, the only goal is to keep the budget in balance, except in emergencies, under the premise that continuous underfunding is not sustainable in the long run. In the latter, the only goal is to reduce the source of funds. So, the contradiction is real.

Trust me. There are no economic conservatives whose primary focus is lower taxes.

Remember: The economy and fiscal policy are tangentially related, but they aren't the same thing.
The Professor

[AP]

36. OK. Except you never hear a politician or a voter describe

themselves as Socially X, Economically Y, and Fiscally Z.

You have to admit, the dichotomy you hear here and in the press and from the candidates is "social X/economic Y."

And regardless of what they think the definition of economics is in the academy, I think most voters are interpreting "economic" without separateing from "fiscal" policy.

[TahitiNut]

51. I consider myself an economic moderate and fiscal conservative.

Yes, I do believe in lower taxes. Why? Because

• I don't believe we should pay 15-20% of our federal taxes on interest on the national debt. Instead, I believe the debt should be retired as soon as possible. Government debt of a longer term than one year should only be assumed for emergencies or extraordinary circumstances.
• I don't believe we're wise to spend seven times the funds for a law enforcement and prison system to deal with a problem that could be reduced at much lower cost by better social programs.
• I don't believe humanity is well-served by a US military that costs more than the next largest 25 national militaries in the world. I don't want "empire".

But that's the "fiscal conservative" in me. The "economic moderate" in me doesn't believe in profiteering on human misery. Thus, I'd prefer a national health care system that consumes 25% less of our national income and covers 100% of our citizens. IMHO, if "increased taxes" meant less net out-of-pocket costs for the overwhelming majority, it's a good deal. "Privatization" of any natural monopoly is, IMHO, nothing but a "fee lunch" for the wealthy and a rape and pillage of the poor and middle class. Furthermore, I'd revoke "personhood" for corporations and prohibit any 'corporation' from owning other 'corporations'. Property cannot "own" property; only people can own property.

And that's only the beginning. Yes, I call that "economic moderation" and "fiscal conservatism" because I eschew the political corruption of language itself.

[Liberator_Rev]

33. We believe in "Tax and SERVE" Liberalism

She what we mean at the site below



at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/taxandserve.

See what Christ might say about the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" imposters.

[TreasonousBastard]

39. You should be suspicious.

After all of the analysis, parsing, philology, and spin, it simply remains that this dichotomy is a sound bite-- nothing more, nothing less.

It is the planned response to the perception of our great leaders that people generally appreciate social programs to help the poor and disadvantaged, and actively support programs that aim toward an egalitarian society that assists hard workers attain their dreams. The public also likes things that take care of kids.

The public is, however, cheap. It hates to pay taxes, and excoriates "waste," whatever that may be.

Supporting education, Head Start, college loans, medical aid for poor kids etc. is Good, and acceptably socially liberal.

Raising taxes to pay for it is Bad, and fiscally, economically, or whatever, conservative.

Covering both sides of your ass putting it this way, and pandering to everyone.

It's all bullshit folks, and just another attempt to pin labels on people. Everyone likes labels-- you don't have to think about the individual issues that way.

[JohnKleeb]

47. its not just DK supporters who know this

terrific :) thanks AP
I am a economic liberal and a social liberal, I do think Dean is good on social issues but economics hes not for me and there are others like that too I just brought him up because I prefer a person who opposed the war.

[AP]

48. Todays anniversary of March on Washington offers good example of my point

The civil rights struggle wasn't about civil rights for the sake of civil rights. It was about access. It was about fighting for an opportunity to participate in the economy, to reap the benefits of society in exchange for paying the burdens.

People wonder why, 100 years after the civil war, we still had apartheid in America. Well, it was pretty easy to do it when you were so economically repressive of blacks and the middle class. To me, it's no surprise that real freedom came after FDR spread wealth to the middle class with the New Deal and after the 50s, the period of greatest economic growth in the US. A fairer, liberal economy comes first, and then you see social justice explode.

And, by the way, it was good for the economy to have more people have access and contributing their unique genius and efforts to society.

And it was good for all society to no longer have an underclass that was so oppressed that they drove down the wage rates for poor whites, while not being able to be powerful consumers of the products labour produced. Cheap, oppressed labor isn't good for anyone who is trying to sell their labour in the marketplace. It just helps shift and concentrate wealth in the hands of people who benefit from cheap labor (ie, concentrated capital who sold their goods outside the US, probably).

[mandyky]

52. Nice try

another attempted slam at the frontrunner.

[AP]

56. Actually, it's motivated by Arnold and California politics,

but now that you mention it, this is one of the issues that make me not that enthusiastic about Dean.

If you'd like to debate the issue, please do. If you want to avoid the issue and pretend that it can be dismissed simply be labeling it a slam, then let your last post stand.

[JVS]

53. Thomas Frank's "One Market Under God"

Had some interesting stuff to say about Social liberal economic conservative. I lent it to a friend a while ago so I can't remember exactly what he said, but the gist was that since the content of the media is written by comfortable intellectuals there is a tendency to describe people within those terms. He even showed an excerpt where socially liberal economically conservative was applied to the mother in a strict Catholic family that was against abortion but supported unions and minimum wage. The idea of economically liberal and socially conservative does not even seem to be thought of at all.

On Edit:
I consider myself socially moderate economically liberal (actually I'd say economically leftist, because economically liberal used to mean what we would call a libertarian now)

[DemBones DemBones]

54. It's amazing to me that so many people buy into candidates who

are "socially liberal but economically conservative." All that means is "I won't be prejudiced against you while you slave your life away, or atarve, as the case may be."

We have to look at ALL of a candidate's positions on the issues and at his RECORD, not just at a few nice platitudes that make us feel good.

Real elections aren't like voting for class favorites.

Real elections give real power to real candidates. Power given to candidates with conservative fiscal and economic leanings is a dangeous thing.

[JohnKleeb]

55. yep

explains why we support who we support I'd say. I am all around liberal, you could call me a green but I am not I am a proud democrat, I want genuine changed, maybe I am idealistic but gee would we have to tone down in the best, and settle for the middle, that imo and you can flame me all you want is wrong. If we can do something and Kucinich's education plan is something we can, and I find it very special, and inspirational. That said Ive listened to DK and he inspires me, he sounds exactly how I do on the issues. Against the death penalty that is big for me.

[dsc]

65. spoken as one

who can't be fired simply for being yourself. I have to say that if you give me a choice between someone who would give me legal rights as a person and has a bad economic policy and a someone whose economic policies I liked better but would do nothing for me rights wise all things being equal I'll take the first one.

[AP]

68. Abraham Lincoln gave lots of people legal rights. Didn't matter til FDR

gave them a little bit of economic power. I really don't think it's a coincidence that blacks had to wait 100 years until there was a little wealth spread around after the greatest expansion of the American economy ever (late 50s) thanks to FDR.

[hedda_foil]

57. Coming from our prime proponent of Blairism and "Blair Dems"

I find your spinning madly in the other direction highly suspect indeed. Trying to get the libruls panties in a wad again, AP? Who woulda thunk it!

[AP]

63. "knickers in a twist" do you mean. You know, Hugo Chavez's

biggest strategy to combat fascism in Venezuela is to shift a lot of political power and wealth to the poor (to make them middle class). He thinks that once that has been done, it'll be next to impossible to go back to fascism.

Also, I read that Blair has Britain on track for the lowest unemployment rate in over 20 years, and some of the highest average salaries, and record salaries for civil servants.

All I have to say is DUH! This is the foundation for liberalism. You want to see Democracy, this is what you want to do. Everything else is window dressing.

And when you say I'm spinning in the opposite direction, what direction do you think I'm spinning? I think I'm the one who's being consistent. Don't you see, money is what it's all about. The war is both a wedge issue to undermine the chance of getting economic liberals elected (including Blair) and it's a tool to shift a ton of wealth to the wealthy (ie, not the people Blair fights for when he increases wages and employment).

[RowWellandLive]

59. I disagree with your premise

I am an economic conservative and have no desire to keep the poor as wage slaves. That is a myth on the left. As is the left wants to keep people in poverty to make them forever beholden to the Government and the Democratic Party a myth of the right. People of good will on both sides want the most financial success for as many people as possible. We just disagree on the best way to achieve that goal. Of course there are self serving evil doers on both sides, but they are the minority. To impune ones motives creates an atmosphere that is poisonous to intellectusl debate. Can you please accept my best intentions and then I can accept yours. Without that we are in a stalemate with no progress or solutions.

[AP]

64. You haven't been paying attention if you think most Republicans

want the most people possible to be wealthy.

If you think that I'm wrong, I have a tax code I'd like to show you, and some Haliburton contracts you need to see, and an energy policy you need to look at, and a list of big Republican donors you need to contemplate, and a defunding of the SBA, and a savings and loan crisis, and a pension fund rip off..etc...etc..etc...

[RowWellandLive]

70. I've looked at it all

and I think the majority of people in both parties want the best for as many as possible. They just disagree upon the best vehicle to get there. Both sides are beholden to their special interests that at times stop them from pursuing the best cause of action. I'd rather debate ideas then motives.

[AP]

71. How in the world is any of the things I've listed

good for the majority of Americans??????

[SharonAnn]

62. Bush is 100% thief.

That's all.

[blm]

72. I'm with you on this.

I want someone to explain why moderation and liberalsism is somehow less competent fiscally than economic conservativism.