...which actually started under Carter, but Clinton strengthened it.

if you'd like to rail against the breakdown of our society as a caring collective, ease on back to LBJ's 'War on Poverty' and it's effect on the disintigration of the work ethic and the superimpostion of goverment for family and local community.

*Nods to G's last comment*

And I'm ganna give Mark Levine the last word so far as "liberalism" and "conservatism" goes.  My dad gave me this book because he's pretty hardcore conservative and my initial thought was "meh, this is probably ganna be like those generic Bill O'Reilly books I read."  I was surprised when he went, indepth, with what comprises each side of our political dichotomy.  He described the liberals as a kind of coalition of otherwise un-related factions: social security and welfare advocates, gay and lesbian affairs, women's rights.  Essentially, a group that wants to change something fundamental about the federal government because federal laws, at current, discriminate against them or, in the case of the welfare state, show more precedence to one group than they do to another.  Just as Protestants attached to the republican party, giving them their "moral/religious" side though, so have social justice and inter-national peace groups attached to the liberals.  The many sub-groups and causes of the liberals have coalesced, however, into a kind of culture and political understanding that, most people who call themselves "liberal" basically adhere to, even if they don't agree with everything being said.  Political parties do a fairly decent job of showing the shades of liberalism: Green Party, Communist Party, Socialist Party, Democratic Party.  But being liberal doesn't mean you can attach all the labels: people certainly pick and choose things that they support more than others.  Here's the important difference between conservatives and liberals though:

While liberals are mostly on the right page as far as moral and human rights issues go, their approach is the most "liberal" thing about them.  They intend on doing so through legislation or additional hand-outs and grants from the federal government.  They believe that money can solve a lot of these problems: if we can just put enough into it.  The problem is- none of it has any constitutional grounding.  They say they do, using the welfare and the proper clause and all this, but it's distortion of the constitution and it's intent.  Conservatives, for the most part, use the constitution as at least some kind of grounding, but, again, in different degrees, because they do the same thing, asking for money for wars, etc.  So, in truth: one side mostly ignores the original intent of the constitution, while the other kind of picks and chooses what it wants from it.  Lately, however, since the economy and other matters of "rights" have come up, the liberals and conservatives are being pushed into their more extreme wings.  The liberals, for instance, have been advocating a variety of things that are, essentially, socialist; it's no in-between, it's straight up socialist.  Some, when indicating more extreme proposals where wealth and property are being redistributed, could even be called fascist.  The conservatives, however, have been working their way back to their constitutional roots.  The problem for the conservatives is that they still work under the same guise that the liberals do: even though they advocate things like a right to their property (thier money) they still work on generalities a lot of the time.  The Tea-Parties are a good example of this; people who are excited about an idea, but a lot of times not completely understanding the end to their means.

The Tea-Parties, in reality, are a slightly watered down version of an even further right-wing revolution going on that can only be called "Libertarian."  Essentially, it's the strict adherance to the constitution.  Interestingly, it's really not conservative or liberal when talking about stereotypes: it's anti-war, but fiscally conservative, diplomatic but for a strong defense, open to new ideas but not willing to over-step the bounds and intent of the constitution.  This is where I tend to start agreeing with things.  Both the liberals and conservatives add to the problems of our government because they don't understand the limits of that government.  The federal government, for instance, has no right to start a way without declaring it, as in the case of Iraq.  It also doesn't have the right to create programs like Social Security, or a national bank.  I could go on and on, but if you wanna get to the root of why we run into these economic problems and these social problems, it's because we don't adhere to any set of guidelines, and the best set of guidelines is in the constitution.  Or atleast that's how I see it.

A very interesting read, Shaz. I may well need to get ahold of a copy of that book...since it seems I am more Libertarian than Conservative? At the least I didn't have a clear idea of what Libertarian really means. *Runs off to do some research*

"...it's anti-war, but fiscally conservative, diplomatic but for a strong defense, open to new ideas but not willing to over-step the bounds and intent of the constitution. "  <---That has me pretty much pegged, though my opinions on war depend on the situation (I think the current one is FUBARed.).

-Drac

Gunnay wrote:7) Europeans are drug-using sex addicts

I like this one Two of my very favourite things, and I'm technically European so it must be true!