In this thread, Liberals argue FOR Conservative viewpoints

[Opiate]

The reason this thread exists should be obvious: in political discussions of virtually all kinds on GAF, conservatives are outnumbered and overwhelmed. While there are of course some crazy political viewpoints (that's true of liberals too, mind you), even those with moderate and/or reasonable viewpoints are drowned out simply because they are so outnumbered. I hope you can imagine how frustrating it can be to express an opinion and get 5-6 replies criticizing that opinion, when many rather extreme liberal positions go completely unchallenged because there are so few conservatives to challenge it.

Even though I consider myself liberal, I abhor an echo chamber. Here are the rules of this thread:

1) If you consider yourself a liberal, but believe certain specific conservative viewpoints are reasonable, start there. Then, try to convince other liberals in this thread why that conservative viewpoint has merit.

2) Do not behave aggressively in this thread. I will be particularly harsh here: I do not want to see posts telling others they are stupid or so wrong they should be ashamed of themselves, or anything of that nature.

3) Conservatives are also welcome here, but don't use this thread as a chance to prey on the deliberately and admittedly restricted liberal quorum. Try encourage debate, rather than "I can't believe liberalGAF finally said it! They admitted it!" or any taunting of that sort.

4) You CAN criticize conservative positions in this thread. I'm just going to be very strict about keeping these criticisms closer to a discussion than an argument. Let's work these through together.

Here is the mindset I want people to go in to this thread with: I want you to work very hard to find some, any conservative position you agree with. Try to make yourself do it, as I personally believe it's a very valuable exercise. The goal, ultimately, is to help people see the "other side," and foster a genuine spirit of debate, rather than the echo chamber PoliGAF often becomes.

 

[lexi]

I agree with conservatives on limited government and specifically not acting as the moral police, especially when it comes to drugs, GLBT issues.

 

[Opiate]

I'll start. I believe increasing globalization has a very real and very significant depressive effect on the ability of competitive countries to maintain high taxation. That is, as it becomes increasingly easy to move to other countries -- both in terms of the ease of travel and the ease of finding a job, relative to the US -- it becomes increasingly important to have low rates of taxation. Not that it's reached absolute parity, mind you, but it's leveled out significantly.

In the 1950s, it was both significantly harder to physically move to China and also significantly harder to find a job even remotely comparable to one you could find in the US. Today, it's both easier to travel and easier to find a good job there. China is only an example here, obviously.

I think that both trends will only continue (professional opportunities will continue to equalize, and travel will become easier and easier), and as this continues, there will be increasingly easy for people to move to whatever country has the lowest tax burdens for themselves or their families. In a unified country, it's possible to unite, in some fashion, to avoid a "race to the bottom" -- but I don't see how that could be remotely possible across nations, each with their own goals and political structures.

As such, I think this will be an increasingly relevant reason to maintain lower taxes, relative to the US of the past.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I agree with conservatives on limited government and specifically not acting as the moral police, especially when it comes to drugs, GLBT issues.

That's libertarians.

Interesting thread idea as I have some, but I'll have to try and articulate them some more in my head before I post them.

 

[Zaptruder]

Can we get an example list of positions and values that conservatives hold?

Because I honestly can't think of anything off the top of my head where I'd agree with a conservative with.

 

[HiResDes]

That's libertarians.

What a start, hahaha, this is gonna be rough

 

[TacticalFox88]

Nothing wrong with being fiscal conservative, but there's absolutely no fucking reason why ANYONE should be a social conservative in the 21st century.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I agree with conservatives on limited government and specifically not acting as the moral police, especially when it comes to drugs, GLBT issues.

I was just trying to decide whether to mention that one. I could use a primer on where those issues fall. I would think the true conservative view point would be to not have the government play so heavily on those issues (I'm for marijuana and gay marriage legalization), but in the US, those are decidedly not the views the conservative political parties support. I won't claim to be the most literate on the liberal/conservative spectrum; I don't have a strong ideology myself.

Nothing wrong with being fiscal conservative, but there's absolutely no fucking reason why ANYONE should be a social conservative in the 21st century.

I'd characterize myself as fiscal conservative, but I probably would disagree with conservatives on the methods to get there.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Can we get an example list of positions and values that conservatives hold?

Because I honestly can't think of anything off the top of my head where I'd agree with a conservative with.

I would say strong national defense is one, and it's one I agree with myself. Then again it's more closer to Scoop Jackson Democrats than true conservatism.

What a start, hahaha, this is gonna be rough

Oh I wasn't trying too, I just think that descriptions comes across as a libertarian more than conservative.

I'll add that lowering the deficit isn't really a bad idea and some principles of fiscal conservatism. I mean good money management is never a bad idea.

 

[WickedAngel]

I'd like to know what kind of "moderate" Conservative voices are being suppressed as the people you're characterizing (The ones who get ganged up on) typically find themselves in that position for using demonstrably false ideologies (Trickle-down economics) or long-disproved assertions ("Best healthcare in the world.", "PPaACA is Socialism").

I can't even think of traditionally Conservative (Fiscal) poster on this board that is set apart from Libertarianism.

I agree with conservatives on limited government and specifically not acting as the moral police, especially when it comes to drugs, GLBT issues.

You'll be hard-pressed to find any Republican that actually believes in any of those issues.

 

[faceless007]

Question is are you defining conservative as modern Republican/Tea Party or classical libertarian?

 

[lexi]

I was just trying to decide whether to mention that one. I could use a primer on where those issues fall. I would think the true conservative view point would be to not have the government play so heavily on those issues (I'm for marijuana and gay marriage legalization), but in the US, those are decidedly not the views the conservative political parties support. I won't claim to be the most literate on the liberal/conservative spectrum; I don't have a strong ideology myself.

Well yeah, if you call yourself a conservative in America these days it's assumed you want to keep marijuana criminalized and gay marriage off the cards.

 

[Deku]

Nothing wrong with being fiscal conservative, but there's absolutely no fucking reason why ANYONE should be a social conservative in the 21st century.

That's a good start. But you're not answering the OP. Why would someone be socially conservative?

And let's try not flippantly mock religion

 

[CornBurrito]

Are we talking about fiscal conservatism, because I don't get how anyone could seriously argue for social conservatism. Not trolling I promise. I just don' see how anyone can find forcing people to follow your personal values can ever be justified.

Though I suppose that is what this thread is for, to convince people like me that there may be -some- merit in the idea of forcing people to behave in a way you deem fit.

 

[FLEABttn]

I agree with conservatives on limited government and specifically not acting as the moral police, especially when it comes to drugs, GLBT issues.

Are we talking the preaching of limited government in regards to not acting as the moral police? Because the reality seems to contradict that.

As such, I think this will be an increasingly relevant reason to maintain lower taxes, relative to the US of the past.

If globalization is inevitable (and it is) and lower corporate taxes are inevitable (and they seem to be, as raises to corporate tax rates seem likely to push corporation HQ's outside the US, and it's not a problem we seem to want to try to legislate away), do we just suck it up and lower corporate tax rates in hopes to decrease the rate in which a taxable base leaves? Do we drop corporate taxes to 0, increase personal taxes, and treat all income the same tax wise?

 

[Gaborn]

I was just trying to decide whether to mention that one. I could use a primer on where those issues fall. I would think the true conservative view point would be to not have the government play so heavily on those issues (I'm for marijuana and gay marriage legalization), but in the US, those are decidedly not the views the conservative political parties support. I won't claim to be the most literate on the liberal/conservative spectrum; I don't have a strong ideology myself.

Well, one thing I'll say for National Review (probably the only thing at that) they've actually been pretty against the drug war. They're definitely conservative I would say, and decidedly NOT libertarian. I'm not sure they're quite ready to go full bore on the issue but at least on marijuana they've been extremely harsh on it.

 

[Ken Masters]

I agree with not killing innocent humans while still in the womb

 

[Opiate]

You can talk any facet of conservatism. Several people in here have voiced support for the fiscal side of conservatism. Okay, why?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Maybe one should look at Canadian and British Conservative Parties for ideas. My dad and I are both liberals, but we were talking and both agreed if we lived in those countries we'd probably vote conservative.

 

[HiResDes]

Hmm...I'm largely pro-life, that's the only thing I can think of whatsoever...As a supporter of a socialist democracy

However when I say I'm pro-life I mean I'm against both abortion and the death penalty.

 

[SolarPowered]

The idea of a government that is more involved in it's own domestic affairs is far more attractive to me than the ongoing paranoid government policy we've had towards our less than friendly neighbors. It shouldn't matter when we've got such a massive intelligence network and such a powerful military. We are even separated from these countries by oceans so I see no reason to continue meddling in the affairs of countries that practically have nothing to lose(I'm talking about states not terrorist groups that are obviously more flexible).

That is one thing from Conservative ideology that I can appreciate.

 

[Opiate]

If globalization is inevitable (and it is) and lower corporate taxes are inevitable (and they seem to be, as raises to corporate tax rates seem likely to push corporation HQ's outside the US, and it's not a problem we seem to want to try to legislate away), do we just suck it up and lower corporate tax rates in hopes to decrease the rate in which a taxable base leaves? Do we drop corporate taxes to 0, increase personal taxes, and treat all income the same tax wise?

I don't think the answer to this question is obvious. The goal isn't just to have positions where you unilaterally and unquestionably agree with a conservative viewpoint -- although that's also welcome, if you can defend it -- but also ones where you say, "I think the conservatives have a point here."

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You can talk any facet of conservatism. Several people in here have voiced support for the fiscal side of conservatism. Okay, why?

Simpe it's something any rational person would do with their own budget, ergo why not for the government too.

 

[Big-E]

Don't really mind the death penalty though it needs serious reform and should only be used for heinous crimes.

 

[WickedAngel]

You can talk any facet of conservatism. Several people in here have voiced support for the fiscal side of conservatism. Okay, why?

Because there is a reasonable explanation for wanting to ensure the solvency of the country. This is an argument in abstraction though; these days, "fiscal Conservative" is a punchline associated with men and women who would have you believe that shredding the social safety net, decreasing taxes on the rich, and raising the Pentagon budget 10% year over year would save money.

 

[faceless007]

OK, I'll go: As a diehard guilty white liberal, I am severely uncomfortable with the premise of race-based affirmative action--not to the point of wholeheartedly opposing it, but enough to make me uneasy about it. The idea that we need to correct the sins of our ancestors by penalizing today's (white) children for something they had nothing to do with, while simultaneously holding certain minorities to a lower standard, is troubling to me.

 

[HeySeuss]

I'm typically a liberal minded person but I an pro capital punishment. Although I'm not sure if that's really a conservative/liberally divided issue. I also have no problems with most forms of torture to extract information.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The idea of a government that is more involved in it's own domestic affairs is far more attractive to me than the ongoing paranoid government policy we've had towards our less than friendly neighbors. It shouldn't matter when we've got such a massive intelligence network and such a powerful military. We are even separated from these countries by oceans so I see no reason to continue meddling in the affairs of countries that practically have nothing to lose(I'm talking about states not terrorist groups that are obviously more flexible).

That is one thing from Conservative ideology that I can appreciate.

Isn't that more Paleoconservative as opposed to Neoconservative. Truthfully I like a lot of the keep ideas of Neoconservatism, it has an idealistic streak and truthfully was made up of a lot of former liberals who felt the US sat on the sidelines and didn't take strong positions in defending human rights and that force can be used for good. It's not that vile ideology it gets the wrap for being.

 

[blame space]

this is the worst thread i have ever seen

 

[GhaleonQ]

I appreciate this topic.

That said, I'd encourage a slight change in the goal, maybe. There's always a continuum of beliefs, and I don't really think it's necessary to think arguments have significant merit to foster discussion. It's just important to understand the assumptions behind them.

My liberal friends/acquaintances don't care that I think a strong, restriction-resistant federal welfare system has more merit than preventing public school teachers from firings, even though I'd strongly oppose both. They care that I know what they value and why that makes them desire both welfare and huge job security.

That really carries over to discussion about art, religion, values, whatever. I don't have to like Lady Gaga in any capacity to understand why someone would, which helps me engage. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with my abortion position if they know I don't hold it because I have animosity toward women or "fornicators" or whatever. We can then find common ground.

From my limited interaction with this side, there's an assumption of bad faith way too often.

 

[Opiate]

Here's an example: who here does not consider themselves a Keynsian? Anyone in here identify as a monetarist or classical liberal on fiscal issues? If so, why?

And Gaborn (and other conservatives), you're welcome to join in the conversation,and I'm glad you're here. But please remember the goal is to get traditionally liberal people in here to argue for conservative viewpoints. It's not hard to find Gaborn discussing the virtues of libertarian ideals, but it is hard to find speculawyer doing so (only an example poster, not actually singling him out here).

 

[FLEABttn]

I don't think the answer to this question is obvious. The goal isn't just to have positions where you unilaterally and unquestionably agree with a conservative viewpoint -- although that's also welcome, if you can defend it -- but also ones where you say, "I think the conservatives have a point here."

In that case, I'd probably agree with conservatives to a certain extent. As much as I'd love to tax corporations more, due to globalism, that's just not realistic without some ingenuitive legislation that's just not going to be passed.

That said I tend to disagree with a lot of conservative sentiments that surround the corporate tax issue.

 

[WickedAngel]

I'm fairly Liberal on almost all fronts but I do firmly believe in a)the right to bear arms and b)the right to defend one's family/home/possessions/life with deadly force if necessary.

Criminals should know that they've forfeit the benefit of the doubt when they've made the decision to break into a home.

 

[CornBurrito]

Don't really mind the death penalty though it needs serious reform and should only be used for heinous crimes.

Isn't it already reserved for heinous crimes?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Isn't it already reserved for heinous crimes?

Yeah, and personally I feel it should be used for certain sex offenders again. I really was upset when the Supreme Court prohibited it.

 

[GhaleonEB]

You can talk any facet of conservatism. Several people in here have voiced support for the fiscal side of conservatism. Okay, why?

I think there's a danger in amassing as large a long-term deficit as the US is piling on currently. From a purely budgetary standpoint, the interest on US debt is rapidly growing as a proportion of the overall budget. While it's true that we are borrowing at a very low rate, in absolute dollars the amounts are large. And that is going to increasingly eat into domestic programs over time and impair basic government functions (or what I view as such).

I'm setting aside the benefits of not having nations such as China hold large swaths of our debts. From a practical standpoint, it will be eating up our budget in the long term. And we could get rid of them now, comfortably, without adverse economic impacts.

 

[speculawyer]

I often argue for 'conservative' views but the liberal side often seems to do them better.

I like fiscal conservatism and to me that means not having massive deficits . . . but to do that then you may need to raise taxes. If you can't cut programs to balance the budget then raise taxes.


But I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue. I'll take policies from either side as long as they work well.

 

[njean777]

I agree with conservatives about spending and needing to "cut the fat".


Not to be an ass, but I do not label myself as neither conservative or liberal as labeling is imo just something to make you feel like you belong to a certain group, which in reality we do not as we are all, who we are.

 

[Opiate]

Here's another point on which I agree with conservatives: government inertia.

Once any law is passed, it seems almost impossible to remove it from the books, even when the law is patently obsolete or the funds it soaks up are clearly going to waste.

This makes me hesitate to give the government any power, because I know how incredibly difficult it is to rescind that power once they have it.

Want an example? The Patriot Act. Another? Something as seemingly small and obviously bad as the F-22 Raptor. There are, of course, hundreds if not thousands more examples of laws that clearly should be gone but are almost impossible to dislodge once they are in place.

If the government were more flexible and capable of revoking old, archaic laws to make way for more laws which more capably and accurately reflect modern society, I'd have far less concern handing over powers to the government. I think conservatives are justifiably wary of giving the government any new roles for this reason.

 

[Puddles]

If globalization is inevitable (and it is) and lower corporate taxes are inevitable (and they seem to be, as raises to corporate tax rates seem likely to push corporation HQ's outside the US, and it's not a problem we seem to want to try to legislate away), do we just suck it up and lower corporate tax rates in hopes to decrease the rate in which a taxable base leaves? Do we drop corporate taxes to 0, increase personal taxes, and treat all income the same tax wise?

As horrible as it is, I think we drop corporate tax rates, but jack the rates on personal income and capital gains over a certain amount through the roof.

A better solution would be to get a global resolution to combat this very real issue, but if we can't deal with climate change, I doubt we can deal with tax evasion. You'd just have asshole countries like Ireland claiming it's the only way they can survive even as they fuck the rest of the world over.

 

[speculawyer]

Here's an example: who here does not consider themselves a Keynsian? Anyone in here identify as a monetarist or classical liberal on fiscal issues? If so, why?

And Gaborn (and other conservatives), you're welcome to join in the conversation,and I'm glad you're here. But please remember the goal is to get traditionally liberal people in here to argue for conservative viewpoints. It's not hard to find Gaborn discussing the virtues of libertarian ideals, but it is hard to find speculawyer doing so (only an example poster, not actually singling him out here).

I lean Keynesian but only to some degree. Right now, I don't think we could have a monster government spending program to stimulate the economy and have it work . . . the money just leaks out of the country and ends up stimulating the economy in foreign countries.

 

[FLEABttn]

A better solution would be to get a global resolution to combat this very real issue, but if we can't deal with climate change, I doubt we can deal with tax evasion. You'd just have asshole countries like Ireland claiming it's the only way they can survive even as they fuck the rest of the world over.

It'd be unenforceable though on a global scale. The only thing the UN seems to agree on that actually has teeth is whether or not to bomb someone.

 

[ivysaur12]

I appreciate fiscal conservative policy towards small businesses. It's important to make sure that small businesses are as strong as possible for local economies.

And... that's it.

 

[ghst]

which political affiliation do i have to sign up with to endorse an authoritarian curbing of birth rates?

 

[Opiate]

which political affiliation do i have to sign up with to endorse an authoritarian curbing of birth rates?

Xbox live party

 

[FLEABttn]

which political affiliation do i have to sign up with to endorse an authoritarian curbing of birth rates?

Whichever party Jonathan Swift stood for.

 

[Trent Strong]

Are we talking about fiscal conservatism, because I don't get how anyone could seriously argue for social conservatism. Not trolling I promise. I just don' see how anyone can find forcing people to follow your personal values can ever be justified.

Though I suppose that is what this thread is for, to convince people like me that there may be -some- merit in the idea of forcing people to behave in a way you deem fit.

If you believe in putting murderers or rapists in prison, then you believe in forcing people to follow your personal values.

 

[ivysaur12]

which political affiliation do i have to sign up with to endorse an authoritarian curbing of birth rates?

Orwellian.

 

[blame space]

which political affiliation do i have to sign up with to endorse an authoritarian curbing of birth rates?

gay political affiliation

 

[SolarPowered]

Isn't that more Paleoconservative as opposed to Neoconservative. Truthfully I like a lot of the keep ideas of Neoconservatism, it has an idealistic streak and truthfully was made up of a lot of former liberals who felt the US sat on the sidelines and didn't take strong positions in defending human rights and that force can be used for good. It's not that vile ideology it gets the wrap for being.

I've heard the terms being thrown about before, but I've never been that familiar with Paleoconservative values. There are certain sects/schools of conservatism that I find hard to appreciate and the Neocon variety sticks out in particular. We just don't live in a world where we can continue to flex our muscle in order to spread our "Democratic" influence.

I would definitely accept that some flexibility should be allowed in this case. I think the more powerful nations do have a certain responsibility to keep the peace when things get out of control. It's important to understand that isolationism is a seriously outdated concept that will ultimately lead to the downfall of any great power.