.
.
.
.
.
It is a common misperception that America governs “from the middle”, politically-speaking. Although, in a sense, this is an accurate statement, what constitutes “the middle” in today’s terms is anything but.
THE “IDEOLOGICAL SEE-SAW”
In a “perfect” political/legislative world, a balance is maintained through a balanced mix of Left-wing and Right-wing politics:
The idea is that, with people battling from both ends of the spectrum, the middle is eventually achieved.
However, until the 2010 mid-term elections, no semblance of balance existed. The current political landscape is the result of 50+ years of effort by Liberals coupled with equal contributions from a complacent “Right” and increasingly Liberal GOP. With cries of “racism”, “homophobia”, “gender phobia”, “bigot”, and all other manner of dispersion, Liberals have cowed the right into moving toward the political center. Meanwhile, Liberals have consolidated their base and moved it from center-Left to far-Left. With these positions now firmly established, ANY movement from the Right has resulted in a far more left-of-center “balance”: the new “Center”. And, as time and legislation passes, the political landscape moves ever more to the Left, constantly re-establishing an ever-more Leftist “Center”.
And, given enough time (and Conservative complacency), the “Center” will be nearly indistinguishable from “far-Left”:
As you can see, given the reality of the new Center, actual, TRUE balance is impossible to achieve.
BUT, with the 2010 mid-term elections, the actual, true “Center” has, again, become a theoretical possibility. With the rise of “The Tea Party”, Congress has in place the means to reestablish the true center ground:
Liberals, of course, have responded with cries of “Right-wing extremism”, “racism”, “bigotry”, “homophobia”, etc.
Time will tell, beginning with the 2011 Congress, whether the “Center” begins to move toward the actual “Center”, thereby achieving true balance. One thing is for sure, though: it was the activism of ordinary Americans who set this stage and it will be ordinary Americans who achieve the actual, true center. In the past, we voted for a person, then immediately ignored our political system. THAT is why we are where we are today. And THAT is why we can no longer afford to be complacent, lest we lose our country to the ideological Left: the Statists, Progressives, Liberals, Marxists….in short, the Democratic Party.
Where the success of Conservatism is dependent on constant vigilance (and action if necessary), the success of Liberalism depends only on complacency.
Next: Part 2 (The Difference between Liberalism and Conservatism)
“Political Correctness” is the McCarthyism of our day. In the 1950’s everyone understood the concept of personal responsibility but struggled with indvidualism. Today everyone understands the concept of individualism but struggle with personal responsibility.
Wow! I swear to God, it seems like the exact opposite to us on the left. Later in the day I’ll back up with more examples and statistics. (Maybe anon or anonster can fill in while I’m busy.) But by many, many measures the “center” has moved steadily to the right for at least the last forty years.
Eisenhower and Nixon were more liberal, in many ways, than Clinton and Obama.
Maybe a clue to why you’d think we’ve moved leftward is in your hyper-sensitivity to charges of “racism,” “homophobia,” etc. Do you for example consider the great civil rights struggle a lurch to the left? Personally I didn’t count that as a left-right thing, but simple plain American PROGRESS FORWARD.
The civil rights movement and the movement towards creating a color blind/gender neutral society was not a lurch to the left. Using race and gender as weapons of suppression was a lurch to the left. Today academia, media and largely government are so solidly left leaning that conservative thought and opinions are largely squashed. Look at climate gate as a prime example. A lot of my friends are professors around the U.S. and they all say that there is a strong environment of suppression and censorship of conservative thought.
Vern,
Conservatives are hyper-sensitive to the “racsim” charges because liberals and the media break out the “racist” card every time we challenge any government program that involves minorities (ask good ol’ Keith Olby about our “code” words). Heaven forbid conservatives are against affirmative action because we believe individuals should be evaluated on merit alone. Or we’re against amnesty because we think people should actually follow the law and get in line behind the multitudes that are doing it legally. Or the Tea Party actually does just want smaller government and for people who earn their money to keep more of it. Nah, racism is much more expeditious.
Well, I will try not to do that, and debate you on substance. I can see that you and Geoff and probably Hirota are preparing to launch a big broadside against affirmative action and “reverse racism.” Is it time to end some, or all, affirmative action? Have we moved past all the old injustices so that minorities are no longer oppressed and everybody has a fair shake in the land of the free? Have we even gone so overboard that now it’s white people, rich people, males, heterosexuals and Christians who are oppressed? I know some of you think so. We should be able to debate that here over the coming months without calling each other names.
Vern, I will speak only for myself. I have no idea what you mean by “reverse racism.” Actions are either color blind and gender neutral or they are racist and sexist regardless of the victim and the perpetrator. As soon as you move past color blind and gender neutral decision making, you are dragged into a quagmire of non-existant definitions.
You do realize that race/skin color is COMPLETELY self-defined. I could call myself Eskimo and there is nothing in the law that would allow anyone else to treat me as anything other than as an Eskimo. There is no definition based on pigment level in the skin, number of generations removed from your homeland or any other verifiable method of determining race or skin color.
The beauty of the Noble Civil Rights Movement was that it was color blind. Unfortunately, implementation measures aimed at correcting past wrongs have largely relied on racist methods to correct those wrongs which many people mistakenly have taken to be “rights.” You do have an absolute right to be treated equally – YOU DO NOT have a right to be treated better than anyone else becuase of your race or skin color, or worse yet, your self-serving self assessment of your race or skin color.
An EXCELLENT lesson-in-action for readers: THIS is one of the tactics of the Left to squash debate before it starts (once started, if allowed to start, THEN come the accusations of “racism”, etc…): “I can see that you and Geoff and probably Hirota are preparing to launch a big broadside against affirmative action and “reverse racism.” The “how dare you go there” challenge, for “moderates”, is usually sufficient to end discussion. As for me: I RELISH these moments!
You, earlier, made reference to the civil rights act of ’64. Hopefully, i’ve explained, to your satisfaction, that I have no issue with the act itself (after all, it called for a Conservative position: equality….TRUE equality…for all. Continuing, I stated that MY issue is with the policies that have followed the ’64 act, all in the name of the act.
Affirmative Action is a PERFECT example.
Here is a piece of legislation, written by Liberals and WHOLLY supported by Liberals and “moderate” Republicans, which creates legal discrimination. The facts of the legislation SPECIFICALLY favors certain groups (based on race and gender) over other groups. THIS, folks, is Liberals’ definition of “equality”, when, in actuality, it is anything but.
It is my hope that we can, over time, debate this (and other) pieces of legislation as well as teh principles which drive the ideologies….
Hirota: out! ….for now..
THIS is one of the tactics of the Left to squash debate before it starts (once started, if allowed to start, THEN come the accusations of “racism”, etc…): “I can see that you and Geoff and probably Hirota are preparing to launch a big broadside against affirmative action and “reverse racism.” The “how dare you go there” challenge…
WTF? The “how dare you go there” challenge is in your head. Or not here, anyway. The topic I mention is what you guys seem to want to talk about, and it’s not off limits in any way. It’ll force me to do some research, and maybe you’ll even convince me.
And Geoff I use “reverse racism” in scare quotes because I think it’s such a silly nonsensical expression. But a lot of white people use it to refer to real or imagined racism against whites. You hadn’t heard it?
Honestly Vern, I’ve never heard of “reverse racism”. Racism is racism, IRregardless of which way it is directed.
The term I like to use “reverse discrimination”. And, although it makes about as much sense as reverse racism, it covers a broader scope of subject matter.
And, the reason I point out the “don’t go there” thing is because I’ve seen the rolling of the eyes on MANY ocassions, where, in a “discussion” with a Liberal, the statement “oh….NOW you’re gonna say….”. Funny, it never seems to work on me…..
Hirota: out!
Vern,
I have no agenda on here but to engage in debate on topics that interest me. I do find it more enjoyable that there are more conservative bloggers so that the debate seems a bit more balanced. But I am happy to listen to anyone’s side, even if I reserve the right to disagree (often vehemently). As for Hirota, and even Geoff, I have no idea what’s to come. I will say on affirmative action that in law school (once we were admitted that is, since I was a victim of affirmative action – but that’s a story for another day) we were assigned a number for our exams and the professors (so we were told) had no idea what student was assigned what number. It was an effort to be as fair as possible and judge the students for the only thing that mattered – their answers to the questions. That’s all I’m advocating for. Let’s judge people on their merits and nothing else.
I eagerly await your examples of how the center has moved steadily to the right.
And, no, it has nothing to do with hyper-sensitivity to those terms because, you see, the only Republicans sensitive to those terms are decidedly NOT Conservative.
And, you are right about Eisenhower and Nixon. And I’ll do you a couple better: please include on that list Bush one, Bush two and Ford; all of whom were “more Liberal in some ways, than Clinton and Obama”. But, this only proves my point….
As to the great civil rights struggle, you need to keep in mind that, by party, it was Democrats who opposed civil rights (ie Robert Byrd, Bull Connor, etc.).
I have NO issue with the civil rights act of ’64. What has been done SINCE ’64, in the name of “civil rights” is an entirely different matter…but I’m sure we’ll be discussing that in short enough time……
Oh Hirota, don’t go citing to facts when it comes to the Civil Rights Act. I mean the fact that at least 80% of Republicans in Congress voted for each version of the bill while less than 70% of Democrats voted for it. Or your reference to the more than 2 month DEMOCRAT filibuster (led by Mr. KKK himself – oops, that’s a Democrat ploy, sorry) that tried to sink the Act (don’t forget Gore’s daddy was one of the filibusters). These pesky facts have no place in discourse.
Hm, what happened to those 30% of Democrats who opposed Civil Rights ‘way back 50 years ago? The … what were they called … Dixiecrats? Hm. They didn’t change parties did they? En masse? To another major party that welcomed them with open arms? While which party “lost the south for a generation?” (actually two generations and counting…)
THIS debate about which party did what 50 years ago is really old and pointless. It’s got moss on it. Leave that one alone.
You’re right Vern, Gore, Byrd, and Fullbright (those who led the fillibuster charge) were staunch Republicans by the time they left office … oh wait.
And liberals love to talk about history when it comes to affirmative action and the like, so why can’t conservatives talk about it when it happens to be inconvenient to liberals?
Dunno about Gore’s dad and Fullbright, but Byrd was a changed man in his later decades.
Some history is more relevant than other history. It’s an interesting fact that the Democrats were the pro-slavery party in the 19th century, and had a lot of southern, pro-segregation members in the 50s and 60s, but it’s got jack shit to do with who the Democrats are now. And it’s such a tired line…
The majority of the Dixiecrats (who, interestingly, were pro-states-rights and pro-segregation) came from the Democratic Party and returned to the Democratic party, post-’64…
Now, while I’ll radily agree that it’s ancient history, but in the context of some coming posts, history is important NOT to ignore…
Cheers!
Hirota: out!
(And, regarding “The other”, I imagine that if this were “Survivor”, I’d have been voted off!) Damn! 🙂
I’m sorry…I stand admonished….
This is crap – the same kind of crap Richard Viguerie and his ilk trotted out three decades ago when turning the right into an “embattled minority.” Virtually all of the topics you discuss (i.e. race, homosexuality,” etc.) were part of Viguerie’s strategy of “gut level issues.”
The fact that people like you are still trotting them out today is testament to how effective the culture wars have been for the Right. Even while the inequality of wealth has steadily climbed over the last thirty years to record levels, the Right screams “Marxism!” Even while Blacks in the United States have made no substantive economic gains in the last forty years, the Right screams “reverse-racism.”
No, this is the same old strategy that has worked so well to keep the Right in power, and to continually shift the country in this direction. What you can’t see – and what has played out time and time again in the U.S. and other European nations – is that your culture wars are so effective because the middle and working classes are so amenable to populism. The Tea Party is not a “conservative” movement, its a populist and largely nativist movement, with all the trappings of earlier natavist movements. Where was the Tea Party when Bush was running up record deficits? Where was the Tea Party when Bush was suspending habeas corpus? Where was the Tea Party when Bush was massively growing the federal government? Bush had the highest increase in federal expenditures of any president since Johnson. Where was this party before we had a Black president?
There is nothing new in your argument. It is the same argument conservatives have been making since they re-organized in the face of Barry Goldwater’s defeat. It is an argument devoid of historical fact, and predicated largely on fear and natavism.
I’ll give you one thing though, it works.
Oh those darn racist Tea Partiers. And what do you mean “Blacks in the United States have made no substantive economic gains in the last forty years.”? Just a few weeks ago black “farmers” made a killing in the Pigsford settlement. Fertilizing your backyard never paid so well.
I suppose that is supposed to be hilarious?
A once-in-a-lifetime out-of-the-blue court settlement for (how many thousand people?) is your retort to “no substantive gain” for the tens of millions of American blacks in 40 years? Is this a joke so you can say “Pigsford” and “fertilizer?”
No Vern, it’s really sad that black farmers who really were discriminated against got left out in the cold while money-grubbing lawyers and fraudulent claimants made gobs of money at their expense. And the Obama administration sits by and claims that there are only 3 fraudulent claims. It’s just one example of the backward logic of a President who is pandering to various groups simply for votes.
And yes, it was a ridiculous comment in response to an even more ridiculous comment from ww (who learned nothing from it – call me surprised).
So what was ridiculous about WW’s original comment? You’re saying things HAVE gotten better for black people over the last 40 years?
Thanks for being the embodiment of my argument.
ww, you make a wonderful point, and demonstrate one my assertions beautifully. You point out (correctly) that Bush spent massively and grew the Federal government hugely. You are right: he did. Bush also had a near-amnesty stance on immigration. Bush also floated the possibility of open borders between canada and mexico. Further, Nixon started the EPA. Bush (one) was the consummate “Centrist”. ALL this, as you pointed out, is true.
….and demonstrates my point. The Bush boys, by Democratic characterization, were Right-wing nut jobs (Bush 2 especially). Nixon was a war-monger, Rigt-winger. (I won’t even bother discussing the attitude toward Reagan).
Yet, all these Presidents, in practice, were Centrist, at best. So, in the eyes of liberals, the “extreme Right” is, in actuality, Centerist….
Thank you.
Socially we’re more left, but when it comes to our view of the Government, starting with Reagan, Conservatism has been on the rise. Lets drown the Government in the bathtub, the nine scariest words, “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you”.
This is where we have the disconnect. There is a cognitive dissonance between the people who study Government, business etc. and the people who run business and Government. The people with the money and the power want to KEEP IT, they tend to be more to the right, don’t want to pay taxes, they spend a lot of money running the media, lobbying Government and making sure things stay as they are.
There is also a cognitive dissonance among those who vote, people who consistently vote against their own interests. We can thank corporate media (it’s not left or right anymore, it’s just corporate owned, deal with it).
Tax cuts do not create jobs. Rush Limbaugh can talk all he wants about how a poor man has never given him a job but a rich man has never changed my oil. We’ve completely lost any sense of balance in our society and the worth of making things here. We’ve allowed both parties to ship jobs over seas, it’s the corporate parties that have ruined things.
The middle is getting screwed from the top down.
@Huh
I am not sure that we are more “socially” left than three decades ago. There is a lot of research to suggest that people’s attitudes on a variety of social issues has become less overtly partisan and more “hodgepodge”. It is an interesting research question though.
However, I could not agree more that we basically have a single party “corporatist” system, with the primary differences being the never-ending culture wars debates. Since Carter, both the GOP and Democrats have followed the same basic formula of deregulation – with the same predictable results of a continually shrinking middle-class. Indeed, the GOP would love us to believe that Obama is a Marxist, as much as the Democrats would love us to believe that they support “main street” Americans. “Blame the other party” has become the predominant logic of political discourse, and through it all there has been little of any investigation into the massive transfer of wealth upwards in the United States in the last thirty years.
In this regard, Clinton is as much to blame for the collapse of the economy as Bush – indeed it was Clinton that signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (which effectively repealed the Glass-Steagall Act), with few congressional Democrats opposing. This opened the door for the rise of credit default swaps and other “creative” financial instruments to be piggybacked on federally backed mortgages. People love to point to one party, one president, or one policy to lay blame. In doing so they demonstrate both their willingness to eschew critical inquiry in lieu of partisan rancor, as well as ensure that they will only get more of the same as each party continues the chimera of politics. And the ratings have never been higher.
I vote Hirota:OUT!
In reading this post, complete with graphics, I feel like I have been subjected to a Glen Beck style classroom lecture. Is that you Glen?
Hey…c’mon! It took all my skills at technology (approaches zero…) to make this thing work right! Gimme a little credit! 😉
Oh, and “Fool me once”?
C’mon….get it right:
“fool me once, shame on – shame on you. Fool me – you can’t get fooled again.”
– George Bush
My advice is to keep it local.
Keep it local, locos!
Agree. Two local posts for each national or philosophical one, ok?
Five to one! And try to tie in national/international stories with OC angles (if possible)
OJ blog is not poli sci 101.
I love how conservatives love to disavow Bush jr. as not being a real conservative (nobody wants to claim poor Georgie or in other words, failure is an orphan), but the following list gives lie to Hirota’s claim that Bush jr. was a “centrist”. So lay back and enjoy Hirota, it’s a true conservative’s wet dream.
From the Free Republic;
George W. Bush’s first year in office (List of 77 accomplishments)
March 25, 2002
In George W. Bush’s first year in office he:
1. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
2. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
3. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
4. Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
5. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
6. Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be Hispanic voters.
7. Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (please see San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001).
8. Cut funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%
9. Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government’s ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.
10. Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
11. Appointed John Negroponte — an unindicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.
12. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rainforest conservation.
13. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
14. Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
15. Suspended rules that would require hardrock miners to clean up sites on public lands.
16. Cut $60 million from a Boy’s and Girl’s Clubs of America program for public housing.
17. Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters.
18. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement. 19. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.
20. Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
21. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
22. Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
23. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
24. Appointed Otto Reich — an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure — to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
25. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
26. Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List.
27. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
28. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety.
29. Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.
30. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.
31. Closed the White House Office for Women’s Health Initiatives and Outreach.
32. Nominated David Lauriski — an ex-mining company executive — to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
33. Approved a controversial plan by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida.
34. Announced intention to open up Montana’s Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling.
35. Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation’s monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling “outside” of national monuments.
36. Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
37. Renegotiated a free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate workers’s rights and safeguards for the environment.
38. Will no longer seek guidance from The American Bar Association in recommendations for the federal judiciary appointments.
39. Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior.
40. Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
41. Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program.
42. Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness.
43. Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects.
44. Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can.
45. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
46. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government’s tobacco company lawsuit.
47. Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut, 43% of which will go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
48. Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills.
49. Appointed a Vice President quoted as saying “If you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants.” (Meet the Press.”)
50. Appointed Diana Roth to the Council of Economic Advisers. (“There is no gender gap in pay”, Boston Globe, March 28, 2001.)
51. Appointed Kay Cole James, an opponent of affirmative action, to direct the Office of Personnel Management.
52. Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect.
53. Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get credit cards.
54. Proposed elimination of the “Reading is Fundamental” program that gives free books to poor children.
55. Is pushing for development of small nuclear arms to attack deeply buried targets and weapons. This would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
56. Proposes to nominate Jeffrey Sutton, the attorney responsible for a recent case weakening the Americans with Disabilities Act, to federal appeals court judgeship.
57. Proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building.
58. Eliminated funding for the “We the People” education program which taught school children about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and citizenship.
59. Appointed John Bolton, who opposes nonproliferation treaties and the UN, to Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
60. Nominated Linda Fisher, an executive with Monsanto, for the number-two job at the Environmental Protection Agency.
61. Nominated Michael McConnell, leading critic of the separation of church and state, to a federal judgeship.
62. Nominated Terrence Boyle, an ardent opponent of civil rights, to a federal judgeship.
63. Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars.
64. Nominated Harvey Pitts, a lawyer for a teen sex video distributor, to head SEC.
65. Nominated John Walters, a strong opponent of prison drug treatment programs, to be Drug Tsar. (Washington Post, May 16, 2001.)
66. Nominated J. Steven Giles, an oil and coal lobbyist, for Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
67. Nominated Bennett Raley, who advocates repealing the Endangered Species Act, for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
68. Is seeking the dismissal of class-action lawsuit filed in the US against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves during WWII.
69. Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular equivalents.
70. Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%; it aided low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills.
71. Nominated Ted Olson, who has repeatedly lied about his involvement with the Scaiffe-funded “Arkansas Project” to bring down Bill Clinton, for Solicitor General.
72. Nominated Terrance Boyle, a foe of civil rights, to a federal judgeship.
73. Proposes to ease permit process, including environmental considerations, for refinery, nuclear and hydroelectric dam construction. (Washington Post, May 18, 2001.)
74. Proposes to give government the authority to take private property through eminent domain for power lines.
75. Proposes that $1.2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve.
76. Plans on serving genetically engineered foods at all official government functions.
77. Forced out Forest Service chief Mike Dombeck and appointed a timber industry lobbyist.
“Anonster”,
An excellent overview of some of Bush’s accomplshments. However, “Centrism”, by its definition, looks at his views, including those an immigration (partial amnesty) and spending (out of control).
Think of it this way: I’m a born-raised-questioned-and-still Catholic. Which means that I stand (and well as I am able) with the teachings (Dogmatic) of the Catholic Church…ALL of them. THAT represents a TRULY “Conservative” position. A “Centrist” position, in this respect, would be for me to claim that, while a Catholic, I don’t believe in the notion of transubstantiation. As transubstantation is a DOGMATIC part of the Catholic Faith, NOT adhering to this belief means that I’m NOT a true Catholic, no matter WHAT I claim.
Hope that clarifies things a bit….
Merry Christmas!
Hirota: out.
Hirota,
By your definition of “conservative”, no real world politician will EVER cut-the-mustard, leaving you free to dance away from any of the consequences of “conservatism”, I do hope that you will extend the same purity test when you examine “liberals” vs liberal politicians.
Oh and speaking of consequences, as I recall (from OC Register, letters to the editor) you were a big proponent of the Iraq war. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war took this country down a path we had never gone before, as well as his refusal to pay for his trillion+ dollar disaster.
Why did you as a “conservative” defend and support Bush’s radical war and do you support tax increases to pay for it?
How did/do you feel as a Catholic who “… means that I stand (and well as I am able) with the teachings (Dogmatic) of the Catholic Church…ALL of them.” when the Pope/Church came out against the Iraq war?;
“John Paul has insisted that war is a “defeat for humanity” and that a preventive strike against Iraq is neither legally nor morally justified.” Foxnews.com
“John Paul was not a pacifist — he describes war as a “last resort,” not as an impossible resort. At the same time, though, he never thought that the invasion of Iraq had reached the “last resort” stage. Catholic Bishops in the United States and Great Britain were unanimous in their support for his message of peace.
According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the invasion of Iraq did not “meet the strict conditions of Catholic teaching for the use of military force.” Bishop John Michael Botean of Canton, Ohio, even went so far as to declare that fighting against Iraqis was a mortal sin. Papal representatives met with President George Bush to try to change his mind.” about.com