What is the purpose of the "Liberal Vs. Conservative" meme?

[Ozymanithrax]

Yes, they are the two halves our our national orange, but what purpose do they serve in a Corporatist paradise?

Really, think about this.

We rage against Conservative fascists and they rail against liberal socialists, but what comes out of that conflict. Corporatism is not Conservative. A government of Corporations, by Corporations, and for Corporations isn't part of that pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, rugged individualistic, John Wayneish, go it alone political philosophy any more than Corporatism is part of government as a tool, social networking, humanistic policy loving, liberalism.

To me, the great Liberal/Conservative debate benefits Corporatists. Yes, we complain that they are the natural ally of "Conservative Republicans" but if you look at the record, when a "Liberal" Democrat or a "Conservative" Republican walks away from that career, how many find them selves scratching for a living and how many find cushy jobs on corporate boards and speeches for money, or simply fall into the Corporate Welfare net making a million plus a year?

Though I have spent some time raging and railing against conservatives, I don't think they are the problem. My personality, education, and experiences makes them a useful target to keep my sites on. My bother, a very far right Christian Conservative sees we "commie librls" as the enemy of everything right and good in the world. We are both pissed off about the banks and the bank bailouts. We are both angry about corporations moving jobs offshore. We are both incensed over the rising cost of health care, college, and just living. Those are not the only problems we agree exist. We just see the culprit as different boogieman.

So maybe pitting Liberal against Conservative isn't what we should be doing. Maybe we should think in terms of influence. Who has influence? How do they use that influence? Who benefits?

Follow the money...

[Armstead]

1. It's a useful template -- But it has become too rigid

I agree that it is ultimately about power and wealth. Who has it, who doesn't and what is or isn't done with it. If we framed things more in that sense, I think we'd do better.

The basic template of liberal and conservative is useful for defining two basic approaches to society and politics.

Liberal -- Active government to advance the common good, provide basic public services and to protect the majority against the power of wealthy minority elites.

Conservative -- Small limited government to leave it to individuals and the private sector to operate freely, and assumedly benefit the public in the process.

Those two poles underlie most issues, and people tend to gravitate towards one or the other.

However, that has also become a straightjacket. Someone might be liberal on some issues and conservative on others. There are also differences in degree.

The problem today is that rather than actually defining how issues are handled, gthey have become "teams" and tribal identities. God forbid I should agree with Rush Limbaugh on anything. God forbid a Republican should believe that Obama can do anything well.

We have to get beyond that, because ultimately there are core issues that self-identified liberals and conservatives could agree on if we could get beyond the tribalism.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. At the point in our history, I see it as a convenient tool, like hating "Nazi's" or "gooks" or

"ragheads" is useful in keep a population angry and willing to war.

Corporatists money flows to both sides, and every piece of legislation must be weighed on how it will affect Corporate Citizens.

Pitchmen frame their arguments to appeal to a demographic and keep us angry at the other side.

What does on behind the scenes is what matters.

[randr]

2. Divide and Conquer

Splitting people along ethnic, racial, economical, religious, or regional lines helps the corporate gangsters trick people into voting against their own self interest.

[-wulf-]

4. How long

before this thread dissolves into the very idiotic "fear of those who think differently than me" that has infested our society?

There is no reason that the basic differences stated by Amestad should equal "Pick one or the other and let us fight to the death!" but that is what seems to be happening.

I subscribe to the smaller government view, but that does not mean that I am against social programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. I think it is in the very essence of American "let's be better than ourselves" spirit that should drive us to help lift up those of in our society that have fallen and need the assistance. I also believe that the challenge lies in keeping programs like Medicaid from turning into a lifestyle. I believe that we should be able to provide health-care, food, and shelter to those who need it, but everyone should strive to provide for themselves. That balance is really essential for our social programs to work.

I think (hope) that we're in the middle of an epic struggle to forge a better society that conjoins the positive aspects of social (left) style of government and the positive conservative (right) style of government.

It seems like a lot of people are moving to the extremes though, but hopefully we'll come out for the better.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Welcome to DU -wulf-...

I subscribe to better government rather than smaller government. I don't confuse the two.

My concern here is that issues such as the SCOTUS decision to allow unlimited spending by Corporations and other entities have tipped the balance to Mussolini style Corporatism. The influence by people who have a bottomless pocket book, such as big corporations, allow them to buy and sell Elected officials as if they were porkbellys.

I do not agree with the answers conservatism offers to our problems, but Corporatism is a violation of everything we are supposed to stand for.

[-wulf-]

6. Seperate issues

I haven't had a chance to read the case summaries yet, but from what I've read so far it seems like the court felt that they were ruling on a bigger issue of free speech. I think that those that want to challenge the ruling need to separate the idea of corporations contributing to government and the first amendment.

I'm not alarmed at this point, because we do have a system in place that, although painfully slow, is designed to handle these types of situations. The previous law was too general and needs to be re-written to separate out the two issues so that we can limit corporate contributions without infringing on free speech.

This will not be accomplished if everyone runs around talking about Communists, Fascists, Nazis, and the collapse of the country. Also, being a corporation is not inherently "Evil" any more than having a large country or government is inherently bad. It just means that a bigger more robust leash is required.

[Ozymanithrax]

7. The very idea that Corporations, non-living ficitonal entities, have free speech...

separate from that of their individual members is ludicrous. The idea that they are unlimited on the amount of money they spend while you nd I, living citizens who breath, eat, and defacate, are limited in what we can donate, both by law and by fiscal reality.

Under this ruling, Corporations are now allowed far more "free speech" than any individual citizen. They are allowed to use their money to strip us of the abilty to influence our government.

As stated, I am opposed to buying and selling elected official like porkbellies.

[-wulf-]

8. and it's sad

that we're in an environment where we feel the need to say "I'm against buying and selling elected officials"

I agree completely. Obviously, the previous law was flawed in its wording and a new one should be written. Level headed people should continue to address the fundamental problem that we don't want large corporations buying government.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Not just the previous law, all laws limiting corporations...

Corproations should not have freedoms separate from their individual members. By Constitutional law, Corporations are living beings separate from their owners and investors. Now, those corporations are allowed unlimited spending, and they have very deep pockets that can never be matched by living citizens.