What is the most compelling reason for a conservative to become a liberal?

[bobweaver]

[MADem]

1. Proper medication, resulting in a return to sanity, perhaps? n/t

[KG]

2. the clue phone rang - this time they answered....

[sportndandy]

3. Got a edgeekashin

Now Ah kin thinks mo' clearly.

[RC]

4. One can better know what one is doing when in the light.

The Evils of the Right can only survive in the darkness.

[punpirate]

5. I'm not sure this happens...

... very often (it's usually the other way around). My guess would be that the primary reason might be that the conservative finds that his traditional base of support has moved much further right than he finds comfortable and recognizes that the inevitabilities implicit in his formerly-held beliefs made him see them as dangerous.

Another reason might be more subtle and nefarious, which is that he might have a premeditated motive to use his influence to contract liberalism and help push it further rightward.

[Paul Dlugokencky]

6. What if the tables were turned?

What would compel a liberal to become a conservative?

"You can lead a horse to water..."

[LynnTheDem]

15. nothing. I'm not into

fucking myself over.

[marions ghost]

36. One thing can turn liberals into conservatives...

if they start making or come into larger amounts of money.

[Paul Dlugokencky]

67. Root?

It's the love of money that is the "root of all evil". not money itself. There are plenty of wealthy liberal Democrats, folks that either have not forgotten where they came from OR who have a more evolved sense of the rest of society.

[marions ghost]

70. true, but I did say "can"...

--I have seen more liberals go along with conservatives to protect their money, than I have seen them freely sharing their money. Just my experience. I'm sure in the upper echelons of Big Money there are liberals who need tax breaks and do give. Even tightwad Bill Gates even gave some money to health care orgs. I know Oprah has set up some organizations, foundations...Heinz Kerry has foundations...and yes Soros has really kicked in. But it doesn't seem to get spread around very evenly. "Evolved people with money" are rare I think. If you have some current statistics on Millionaires/Billionaires I'd be interested. But I guess I'm talking about the "Thousandairs" who suddenly get very tight and
Republican.

thanks for your response!? best, marion

[Arkana]

42. Um, nothing--I don't want to walk around

with my eyes shut and hands clamped over my ears, thanks.

[Blue Gardener]

7. We don't drink Kool-Aid

It's nasty stuff.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. the so-called conservatives in power are no longer conservative

but irrational facists, intent on destroying our democracy and remaking it as a corporate controlled state, rewarding the rich, punishing the poor, invading our privacy and mounting huge deficits that can never be repaid.

Conservatives that I know-I'm talking about true, old fashioned, small government, balanced-budget conservatives-are reeling. They are running towards the Democratic Party and the liberal label as if persued by a tsunami.

[noamnety]

10. Yep, it's the budget

The deficit is the undeniable evidence that the conservatives aren't conserving anything.

If they look elsewhere (environment, SS, etc.) they'll see it's a pervasive attitude.

[Lexingtonian]

9. a close look at Republicans, Libertarians, and Greens

That'll cure any stupidity. The hard part is getting them to look closely.

[liberal N proud]

11. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

[iconoclastic cat]

12. After ten abortions, you get a cool keychain!

:eyes:

[Thtwudbeme]

13. Unemployment

People in this country will turn Liberal the day they go to the food bank, and told that there isn't enough to go around.

That's the day you will suddenly see a shift in political thought in the good ol USA.

[Megawatt]

14. Oh probably in a few years when

they look back at a trillion dollars and 5000 deaths spent in Iraq and end up with another strong man running the country like an autocrat. They will realize that we could have balanced the budget like conservatives used to claim they wanted to.

Another reason would be personal lessons in the new corporate one world economy being forced down our throat in our race to the bottom. A lot of dot commers were probably repukes until they figured out that their bosses had no problem farming out their jobs to India. Once all the jobs that can be outsourced have been outsourced and the remaining service jobs in country are being paid $5 an hour thanks to uncontrolled borders that our CEO masters demand, then they will probably realize government by the corporations and for the corporations , probably wasn't a good idea.

[mandyky]

16. When one or one's friends or family need help

whether it is a social safety net or defending civil and human rights, liberals are best at this.

[sellitman]

17. The trashing

Of our Constitution. A real Conservative would suffer life and limb to save it. The Neo-cons are destroying it as fast as they can.

:mad:

[kcwayne]

18. Retirement

When they retire on a pension that is wiped out by corporate scandal, and the promised health care insurance for life contract is reinterpreted to mean life of contract and is subsequently withdrawn, and they have life threatening cancer from living in a polluted gated community. With no savings, social security, and no access to medical care after having spent a lifetime working, they will suddenly decide that society owes them something more than a blank spot on a form to request a pauper's cremation by the civil authorities.

Oh, and their kids couldn't help because the ones that didn't die in a foreign occupation are working for minimum wage at Walmart.

[McKenzie]

19. you won't get deported from Scotland

heehee.

[Enraged_Ape]

20. Finding a girlfriend/boyfriend who is a liberal

Something magical happens when, for the first time in your life, you actually get LAID.

Seriously, it takes an experience of this magnitude to get a conservative over themselves and into someone else, and that's the ONLY time they will start challenging their own selfish, lonely, scared beliefs.

[Kingofalldems]

21. Get arrested

Ever notice they get all liberal,at least for a while, when either arrested by the police or investigated, ala Pigboy?

[txaslftist]

30. Yep...That's the one.

Get arrested and all of a sudden it's not so easy to be tough on crime.

[Solly Mack]

22. Survival

Joe Blow conservative doesn't have the bucks that Bush & Friends do.

His aspirations won't pay the hospital bill, the food bill, the gas bill, the light bill, the water bill...or get him decent wages with decent benefits, IF he can even find a job. His aspirations get him the exact same thing I get from the republican party....jack shit but a hard time.

[deignan]

23. Depends what you mean by liberal

Liberal in the classical sense? That would be a neocon

Liberal in the sense used today? Well, then what is a liberal? I still haven't figured out what a progressive is except a supporter of some small set of issues and otherwise discontented.


The point is that the party needs some principled definition in the new "ownership society" and "global economy". Being a populist is not really popular with the population (at least the ones that own stock and a house).

Being discontented is a sentence to perpetual discontentment as a minority faction.


The question is, "Are there principles worth saving?"


Well, what are they and are they consistent. Everyone cannot get what they want at the expense of someone else forever. Slogans don't cut it.

Is the point of this forum to reform the party? If so, it is time for some straight talk -- and potentially hurt feelings. If this continues on much longer no one will be happy except the same people being critisized here. (Can you imagine how Rove must feel right now?)

[Solly Mack]

24. Oh do enlighten us

[deignan]

25. Question

I'm asking the question.

It's for you to answer.


If you want to be a perpetual minority, that is your business. If you do not, then put those brain cells to work and come up with an answer.

[Solly Mack]

26. Thought as much

[deignan]

27. So did I

Hopefully there are others who have the vision to seize the day.

[CTyankee]

28. Taking the long view

This is not the first time that the Enlightenment has failed. It's an old story.

[TahitiNut]

29. I'll go with Rawls.

Liberalism in the modern sense is an essential maturation of classical liberalism. The seminal difference is the ascendance of "freedom from want" as an essential human right. In a world of vast, unexplored, and untapped resources, as existed up until about the late 19th Century, such an ascendancy was easily overlooked - despite the glaringly obvious red flags raised in Dickensian England. Not so any longer.

Clinging to the immature "classical" sense of liberalism in a modern world is an abomination of values, since political privation is inextricably coupled to deprivation of human rights. Almost nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in the "all volunteer" military, where massive economic coercion creates an American Animal Farm, where all the animals are equal but some are more equal than others.


Oh ... and I'm ENfj (22 74 23 1 ... if I recall correctly). Always ENxx, I often show up as ENTP or, less often, ENTJ or ENFP.

[deignan]

44. OK

"Freedom from want"

That is a definition at least that people can understand. You understand, of course, that the devil is in the details of relieving this want. Presumably you can't do it yourself.

############


You will need to explain "maturation". (See the problem here?) There should be consistency with fundamental principles. "Freedom from want" is an objective to reach, not a principle. So when I say to the conservative, "I want freedom from want", he says, "Here's an apron, you can eat the leftover hamburgers after closing".

The point is that it is generally assumed that we cannot sort our "good" people from "bad" people in voting, so instead we set out goals and principles/policy. If we achieve the goals, then people might vote again for us based on proven performance. Since not everyone has the same wants, satisfying a majority on day is not going to necessarily give me a majority in two years hence. Also, the other guy can play at this game also.

That is why principles are so powerful. They are both the message and the means ergo the question.

[demwing]

38. If you don't understand what a progressive is

and if you think populism isn't popular, then you just have not been paying attention.

Turning to Wikipedia, the definition of populist reads:

At the most basic level, populism is a political ideology that holds that the common person is oppressed by the elite in society, which exists only to serve its own interests, and therefore, the instruments of the State need to be grasped from this self-serving elite and instead used for the benefit and advancement of the oppressed masses as a whole. A populist reaches out to ordinary people, talking about their economic and other concerns. Individual Populists have variously promised to "stand up to corporations" and "put people first."

The Republican party has been using populism against the Democratic party for some time, painting us as the ruling elite(despite all evidence, we are accused of controling all the schools, including universities, the Federal Courts, the Media, and the government!), out of touch with the common people ( we have no values), effete pseudo-intellectuals that think they can spend their way out of any problem and then burden the people with higher taxes to pay that debt (tax and spend liberal commie homos, that sound familiar?).

Reagan was a populist, Bush2 is a populist. Gore was wandering in the desert of his candidacy until he added a touch of populist rhetoric and surged ahead. Populism is very popular.

As far as progressives are defined, the term can be applied to liberals, moderates, or conservatives. Again looking to Wikipedia you'll find an excellent definition, which I'll quote:


Progressivism or political progressivism is any of several historically related political philosophies or political ideologies. There are also a number of Progressive political parties in various countries. Political Progressivism per se can not be clasified as left or right in any particular political spectrum, though majority of current progressive parties align themselves to the left.

The basic Progressive vision is of community as a caring, responsible family. Progressives envision a community where people care about each other, not just themselves, and act responsibly with strength and effectiveness for each other. The basic principles of Progressivism are:

Equity
What citizens and nations owe each other. If you work hard; play by the rules; and serve your family, community, and nation, then the nation should provide a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity.

Equality
Do everything possible to guarantee political equality and avoid imbalances of political power.

Democracy
Maximize citizen participation; minimize concentrations of political, corporate, and media power. Maximize journalistic standards. Establish publicly financed elections, Invest in public education. Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not just stockholder control.

Government for a Better Future
Government does what the future requires and what the private sector cannot do or is not doing effectively, ethically, or at all. It is the job of government to promote and, if possible, provide sufficient protection, greater democracy, more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life, less violence, and the building and maintaining of public infrastructure.

Ethical Business
In the course of making money by providing products and services, businesses should not adversely affect the public good, as defined by the above values.

Values-based Foreign Policy
The same values governing domestic policy should apply to foreign policy whenever possible.


Wikipedia URLS -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

[deignan]

43. A turn of a phrase

The point was that populism is not popular enough to get a majority (at least of the electoral votes).

Edwards may have presented some populist ideas, but he lost.


Note that there is no good definition of progressivism. (as above).

So, when you go up to a voter and say, "Hiya -- you ought to be progressive like me!" He is likely not to get the full meaning of your drift unless you drove up in a van that says "Progressive" on the side panel.

[RandomKoolzip]

40. No shit?

"Well, what are they and are they consistent. Everyone cannot get what they want at the expense of someone else forever."

Oh, you mean like how my boss demands my time and labor and pays slave wages? I totally agree with that.

Or do you mean how corporations exploit our resources, natural or otherwise, and profit out of all porportion to their needs or labor? Yeah, that should stop soon too.

Funny how we agree, isn't it? Sounds to me like the conservative, unregulated, republican-friendly multinationals who really rule us have been getting a free ride for too long.

[deignan]

45. Yup

That's it. Sucks to be on the short end of the stick, doesn't it?

[TahitiNut]

46. As long as the long-endians assume total authority over the rules, yup.

"Veil of ignorance" anyone? :shrug:

[deignan]

52. Campbell

I have a philosophy that the best answer is usually an honest question that no one else asks.

We should question orthodoxy before we become its slaves.

What is the meaning of the method?


P.S. Great list of movies (I'd also recommend "The Butterfly Effect" and "Dr. Zhivago" if you haven't seen them already)

[bobbyboucher]

47. The "principle" of which you speak, sound eerily like

"indoctrination" to me. What you appear to be trying to put forth (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, for now), is that liberals, progressives, greens etc., need to start marching in line and goose-stepping with some droning, mindless message blaring overhead, so that the simple-minded can understand what our goals are and will vote for us.

Is that the gist? Let me give you a little help, "we" are not like "them".

[deignan]

48. Our choice -- free association

Presumably the choice has already been made. Now it would be helpful to articulate the underlying reason.

At some point going down the line of thinking, there are core principles. Certainly, they can be stated.

So the first question is, "What is a liberal/progressive? (in your mind)"

[bobbyboucher]

71. Are you only going to ask, or are you offering up

a message. Anyone can ask for a message.

[deignan]

74. A Strategy

It seems to me that there is at least one core principle (with implications and variations in implementation) that is fairly well agreed upon and that does form a basis for political success if the principle is articulated coherently. However, before I can suggest such a principle here and offer it up for discussion, I needed to determine what others here thought that principle should be. That was this post: Core Principles?

The results were consistent to what I had in mind.


Then I decided to test the feasibility of promulgating the principle coherently at what I estimated to be its point of greatest intrinsic resistance. That was this post: A Hypothetical Choice. So far, the results of the feasibility test seem promising, but I am not sold yet on the statistical significance of the poll. I'll wait another day or so before deciding on whether or not to proceed.

[Cats Against Frist]

56. thank you, this is one of my points below

"Personal responsibility" should apply to everyone, not just inner city blacks. If "getting what you want, at the expense of others," is a problem, then both your stereotypical "welfare queen," and your corporate exploitationist are both riding in the same "Caddy," so to speak.

I agree with the idea of "personal responsibility," I'm just afraid that most conservatives don't really know what that term means, or they have a very limited view of what it means.

[Cats Against Frist]

55. Uh, classical liberals are not neocons

and even if the neocons have some classical liberal tendencies, say, lack of a domestic policy, except for "control the masses so they support our empire-building," any self-respecting classical liberal would have a VERY tough time siding with the Republican party of today, since the GOP is right-wing statist authoritarian in just about every way, and is corpo-fascist in the gaps where they're not for the welfare state.

Classical liberals are free marketers and the GOP is not for the free market. The corporations are human, in court, the corporations own the military, most of our senators and representatives, and they ARE the Republican leadership. See my post below -- I'm ready to ask and talk about the tough questions, but while we're at it, we're going to ask some really fucking tough questions of the current GOP, as well.

[deignan]

59. Classical Liberalism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

This is the definition I am working with. The point is that in this last election, people who identify with this sort of liberalism (old Democrats) swwitched parties. They call themselves neocon (for whatever that is which is something I suppose I could ask at a conservative forum if there were any).

[Cats Against Frist]

60. Neocons are not conservatives, either

Neocons are something altogether special -- they can blend in with just about any party, under the right rationalization.

Just a hypothetical, for instance. Say it was Clinton who invaded Iraq on the pretense of "human rights" and it had the support of the Interntional community, and the liberals supported it, and the CONSERVATIVES opposed it: the neocons would be supporting the Democrats. The neocons are not afraid of the welfare state, and have no real philosophy for domestic policy, except that which furthers their hegemonics, or whatever.

I believe Richard Perle, when he says he's a registered Democrat. Neocons, though ready to "spread democracy" are not necessarily pseunonymous with "Republican."

I think, (and they have been publicly accused of this, not just by me), that neocons kind of "shape-shift" their domestic policy to support whatever candidate or party can help them with their real goals, which is to protect Israel and make-over the Middle East, and any other country that gets in the way. William and Irving Kristol have done a little "thou doth protest too much" on this on the pages of the neocon rags.

Some of the neocons may be classical liberals, in some ways, and even liberal-liberals, but there would be a divergent opinion on empire building.

I want to add, though that there is a Republican-neocon hybrid, and that neoconservatism has been sucked up into corpo-fascism and theocracy-type philosophies.

[deignan]

62. 2004

I think that election was lost because of this difference. For that matter 2000 and 2002.

This was absolutely unnecessary and uncalled for. I hope you can appreciate that I am a little discontented myself with the party leadership.

You know, whenever a group is being lead by schmucks, the schmucks invariably point to someone else and say, "Blame them instead (now continue to trust me)". You know, Bush did not lose the election for the DNC. The DNC did that themselves.


Again, I am new here so I will not go on my trirade. I just hope that McAuliffe is not a personal friend of anyone on the board.

There is a good site, I think it is www.standupdemocrats.org that seems to have the same issues. On that site is a pdf that makes the same point I am trying to make.


So where should the revolution start? Why not here?

[DireStrike]

63. Oh don't worry. There's a good many people discontented with

The "leadership". So feel free to go off on that point. :)

Thanks for the site, I'll check it out.

[AP]

31. Because Democrats are right about what will move America forward

and Republican policies are taking America backwards.

[Historic NY]

32. A lot of them will change when * ** screws up Social Security so bad...

they can't wear their whites & go to the country club anymore, while driving their Caddy. The will not be able to afford it....

[Justpat]

33. A conscience

[demwing]

34. The Separation of Church and State

to a true conservative, that is a bedrock principle. It protects the State and the Church.

If modern conservatives stopped to think about it for a moment, they would understand that the doors that exists between the state and the church are doors that swing freely in both directions.

Unlock them at your peril, whether you be a secularist or non.

[BurtWorm]

35. Remind them of conservatism's roots in Enlightenment liberalism

and point out that the "conservatives" they're collaborating with in the religious right are enemies of the Englightenment and reason.

[AmandaRuth]

37. When you truthfully look back at your life and realize that you

pretty much done whatever you wanted to do, as long as you could afford it. That you lived your life as a liberal. You know people who have divorced, pursued untraditional careers, maybe did a little drugs in your youth, know someone who had an abortion. Someone who had a nice middle class life, homeownership and all that, due to a union job, You are a liberal, might as well go ahead and say it.

When you realize that being conservative means nothing more than maintaining the status quo, and the status quo wants nothing more than the destruction of the middle class. When you realize that jobs are going overseas, wages are being depressed, taxes are being shifted to the working class, college is unaffordable, the environment is being trashed, and the republican party of science no longer exists, and maybe just maybe, you feel uncomfortable with a national religion and the undercurrent of racism in conservatism.

[amazona]

39. pocketbook issues

In the cases I've seen where conservatives become liberal it is because they finally figure out the effect that conservative policies have on their pocketbook. And I've seen quite a few. Conservatives may talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[woo me with science]

41. Liberals start articulating their true values

instead of pandering to little interest groups (duck hunting, anyone?), shifting positions based on polls or some issue of the day, and choosing candidates based on some stupid notion of "electability."

[RuleofLaw]

49. Decency!

[Cats Against Frist]

50. Depends on why that person's conservative

If that person is racist, bigoted, superstitious and believes that the church rules all decisions, I'd say they should probably stay a "conservative," or at least a current GOP supporter.

If that person worships the market and belives that money is more important than human beings, and is what they call a "neo-liberal" they should probably stay a GOP supporter.

If the person constantly claims that the 50s were the "good ol' days," and that women shouldn't have jobs, they should probably continue to be a GOP supporter.

If a person is xenophobic and believes that other countries are "less civilized" and therefore need our "guidance," which, for some reason always accompanies the exploitation of natural resources or strategic military presence, then you should probably stay a GOP supporter.

If you believe that corporations should run the government, you should stay a GOP supporter.

If you believe in a large, statist, right-wing authoritarian government with empire-building tendencies, you should stay a GOP supporter.

NOW

If you were simply CONSERVATIVE, why would you want to be liberal? Depends. If you support the current GOP, you support large, statist authoritarian government, so it would not be too hard to support the regulations, rules and bureaucracy that also accompany socialism -- say, if you just had a different worldview. If you were a small-government conservative or a Libertarian, you might want to side with the Democrats to send a message that the country has gone too far right or that civil liberties are more important than people's "opinions."

Let's first say, if you were a moderate CONSERVATIVE, why would you want to build a coalition with liberals, progressives, libertarians and Democrats?

1. Because you don't believe in a doctrine of pre-emptive war, and are educated and aware enough to know who it is that is really threatening you, and are willing to explore the reasons why, even if it doesn't reflect well on your country or people.

2. If you believe that Jesus is more important than Leviticus, and you take pride in your communities, and you believe that it is worth your time or income to help meet that goal.

3. You believe in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, War Criminal Tribunals, and that all other nations of the world aren't somehow CRAZY while 60 million yokels and creationists are "right," and that the world community is worth at least having a dialogue with.

4. You might not side with the Democrats with everything, but you are tired of GOP propaganda tactics, hate radio, the dislodging of objectivity, the trashing of intellectualism, and you just wish people could have a RATIONAL DISCUSSION, where there are facts and arguments, because you're concerned about a better world, not more power.

5. You love your country and want to send a message to the neocons, corpo-fascists and fundies that they've taken the country just a little too far right, in an authorian way, that you never intended, and they never informed you of.

***** That's a few reasons.

Now, why would you want to be a "liberal," if you were already a "conservative" is a completely different and much more complex question, altogether. I would say that both terms are misunderstood, and relative -- the neocons and those who support the Patriot act are EXTRAORDINARILY liberal, while environmental conservationists and those opposed to unhindered, free trade with other nations are, well, conservative.

I would say this: if all citizens would take a step back and recognize the following things, we'd get somewhere:

1. We all have basic needs, though even that is relative, but we SHOULD all help each other meet basic needs -- HOWEVER, it is not the responsibility of the state to turn you into a responsible person. It is YOUR responsibility, no matter who you are: business owner, mother, father, CEO, gay, straight, modernist, classical, religious, non-religious, etc.

2. Utilities and electricity should PROBABLY be owned by cooperatives or local governments -- energy companies really serve a VERY FEW and exploit the rest of us.

3. Other than that, anything that doesn't harm anyone else's life, liberty or property is none of your fucking business. Your body is sovereign, and though abortion is a problem for some, it is not your decision what others do with their body. Just like it is not my decision what you do with your money.

4. National branding and national consciousness have created a psychological "American space" that serves only to "join you up" to a sort of consumer zombie-ism, and that it really hasn't served us very well, and that both "liberals" and "conservatives" might agree that more local control, more local commerce, more "small town storefronts" might be a benefit to us, rather than behemoths like Wal-Mart and McDonald's. Then, it is possible that we could live in our, say, ACTUAL sphere of existence, and form community standards for the things that we so violently argue about nationally, now, for no real other purpose than to score "points" on the other side. Also, give government back to the people, instead of making it some abstract concept, controlled by people who just happened to have the most money, and be the nastiest.

5. A dedication to being a responsible consumer, and realizing that life is not about consumerism, and that companies that treat their workers like shit can be punished by the consumer, rather than the government, and that there are cooperative, localized alternatives to pumping money into big insurance and big energy, etc.

6. That we all have the responsibility to respect each others' religion, or lack thereof, and not claim this country for someone's specific religion. I agree with making it possible so that people can practice their religion, but no child is ostracized or has to willingly publicly state their disbelief in a community of believers in order to get out of participating in a majority ritual. But also that believers have rights, and there is a compromise, if each side would actually listen and try to accomodate the other.

7. Government relies on the people -- we grant it its power, because it is self-evident. It was a concern of our founders, as well as many of our current and past citizenry and leaders that corporations would usurp the government, and through influence of money and power, control the laws. Though a bunch of brain-dead zombies may become willing corporate chattel, it is mostlikely common sense to most people that law should exist outside the scope of what is good for corporations. And that corporations should neither be recognized as individuals, or allowed to "buy" the political process through campaign contributions, or lobbyists, or covert operatives (Bill Frist) who write the laws in favor of the corporations.

That said, the sovereignty of corporations from the government should work both ways, in that government can PUNISH corporations for destruction of life, liberty or property, but should lift "prior restraint" regulations and anti-discrimination laws. And the union should get its power from solidarity, rather than government-granted bargaining rights.

8. We are responsible for our own nation, and no other nation or group of nations. Despite the fact that we sometimes do good, and give aid, etc., we should be required to do no more than other nations and groups, and that our lives and our resources and our homeland security and defense are our priorities -- not global corporate adventure, pre-emptive war, "spreading democracy," or anything else. If we feel that something needs to be done in a particular part of the world, it would be, well, polite and sensible to say, get a real coalition of nations, so we are not responsible for bearing the burden with our lives, our money and the lives of our children, and that the cause should ALWAYS be noble, and neither strategic, pre-emptive or imperialist.

9. That we're all worth something, and that we're all worth the same, whether we're from this country or not, whether we're rural or urban, whether we're rich or poor, whether we're "good" or "evil," and that all of our opinions and thoughts have validity, and that we should be able to pursue our own course of freedom in as many ways possible, unhindered -- BUT that those who don't agree may not be unhindered from speaking criticism (so long as it's not threatening), and that language is not fixed, but is fluid, and that both the speaker and the offended and the bystander have the ability to process and let that language control them, or choose to be humble, and not control others by language.

I'm sorry that I'm not so eloquent with this -- I've already typed too much, and this is actually a book-length thing. I'm a libertarian socialist who believes in the rights of everyone, but that humility, taking care of others, stewarding the Earth, being healthy, and being peaceful and rational and tolerant is "right," though I also recognize that statism doesn't make all these things happen, and that there are other alternatives. There are always alternatives.

Anyway, maybe we should be both liberal and conservative.

[UdoKier]

51. To avoid an eternity in hell.

Or maybe to live in a society that functions well for most rather than just a few.

[GumboYaYa]

66. LOL

I should have your post before I made mine.

[DrZeeLit]

53. It happened to my husband. He's completely changed affiliations.

And here's why.
He was impressed with Clinton. Hated what his affiliated party did to hound Clinton using his tax dollars. That started it. Then he became completely unglued by the use of his tax dollars (and believe me, his tax dollars are significant) with the idiotic impeachment.

So, for him, it's the use of money. He started to read everything he could get his hands on. He reads a lot about the use of money. He knows that Democratic administrations actually do better with money than Repubs -- which is contrary to the pr. He knows via experience that when we put people to work in real jobs, everyone benefits, money flows, and taxes actually go down since the tax burden is spread over a wider base.

He voted for Gore, hoping the Clinton years would continue.

He freaked out when Bush began to dismantle all the good Clinton had accomplished. He freaked out more and more with tax cuts, job losses, and accumulating debt. He saw the Bush Admin use 9/11 for some excuse, when he knows that even the Depression was a call to unite America that really did work.

Then, Bush piled on a war we have no hope of winning and a debt that is going to ruin his grandchildren's future.

Even more... he's seeing the whole Christian thing make him crazy, since he's a money guy and prefers faith separate from government.

Sooooo, there you have it. Money drove him to a more liberal viewpoint. And with that, reading. Lots of reading. Right after 9/11 he was fully into Chomsky and Zinn.

And... he even worked for Kerry -- I mean... outside in the fall at rallies.

I love him because he is willing to learn, and even though change scares him, he's open to it in a rational way.

[Commendatori]

54. I don't know if I'll ever qualify as a liberal, because

I'm probably more fiscally conservative than most people here, but I'm a Democrat largely because of things like the Patriot Act and religion. Since previous posters have correctly pointed out that Republicans are no longer fiscal conservatives anyway, what reason do I have to support them - given that some of their previous fiscal views were all they had that I agreed with to begin with?

[Cats Against Frist]

57. Or, if you didn't like my other answer, there's the classic "third estate"

answer:

"When the "have nots" are coming up the golf course subdivision driveway to put your head on a post outside, swim in your pool and eat your steak tartar."

[KamaAina]

58. The desire to walk upright

and quit dragging one's knuckles on the ground (calluses, y'know).

[ChairOne]

61. Decency. duh. /eom

[Justin54B20L]

64. Fiscal conservativism actually means Democrat now

[GumboYaYa]

65. So you don't go to hell...

:)

[CWebster]

68. It happens as one evolves up the ladder from the

primordial swamp.

[Melynn]

69. Easy

Why should a conservative become a liberal? Because you don't want a chimp for a leader.

[PowerToThePeople]

72. To prove an IQ of over 100

They won't change...

[msgadget]

73. When they realize the principals they hold dear benefit

politicians, the super rich and multi-national corporations significantly more than them.

[Ignis]

75. Better parties

NT :)

[izzybeans]

76. Most conservatives I know

tie pretty much everything to a generic notion of liberty-fiscal liberalism is a sign of big government which signals infringement to these folks. In this idea they confuse the issue of freedom and fail to take into account corporate governance. The image of the government to them, no matter the program, lumps everything into one big pile. They consistently confuse the welfare state for a police state and do not link up their own choices to corporate control. For instance, the privitization movement hinges on them believing in entrepreneurship and small shoppkeeping. They think that freedom means that economic investment should always be done within this sphere, but in fact most transactions do not happen there. Their willing to turn over their public goods to corporations because of this. If there is a reason for their conversion it is becuase corporate infringment upon individual liberty runs unchecked. They will need the state to rest back for them the freedoms being monopolized by the corporation. Shifting this image I think is important in winning conversions. This causes them to ignore the fact that despite their own rhetoric they constantly call for a bigger police state-prisons, army, homeland security, etc. which is the only part of the government not set up to operate in their interest in protecting liberty-despite the phrase "the terrorist hate our freedom". So armed control equals liberty to them, while an enabling government does not. Reversing that equation would do some good.