Liberal Views Explained

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I see coal as yesterday's technology that needs to be phased out thoughtfully in favor of better, cheaper, cleaner alternatives. To me, it doesn't seem conservative to keep its market propped up with unfair subsidies, and tariffs against its competitors, does it? 

 

Correct.

Conservatism isn't against renewable energy.

Texas, for example, arguably the more Conservative state there is, has a renewable energy industry that is skyrocketing.

In fact, it generated more wind power than any other state.

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Texas, for example, arguably the more Conservative state there is, has a renewable energy industry that is skyrocketing.

Largest, yes, but certainly not the "most".

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Conservatism isn't against renewable energy.

Some conservatives argue that the oil and gas industry is the one we heavily invested in, and it's too risky to rely on unproven new technology where our country's energy policy is concerned ("Gotta dance with the one who brought you"). They argue that they're now finally able to make a decent profit after all the R&D costs they've incurred, and all the federal hurdles they've had to overcome in their steadfast struggle to employ God-fearing Americans and keep their families safe from soviets and socialists who would undermine our way of life. They argue that liberal thinking is the antithesis of working class ethics, and that updating technology leads to robots and the end of the American worker. Some think it's better to keep doing what we've been doing because we just can't know the consequences of changing it.

[OldChemE]

I've always considered myself to be a Conservative.  I'm amazed at how many of the items on the list I agree with.

[Raider5678]

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Some conservatives argue that the oil and gas industry is the one we heavily invested in, and it's too risky to rely on unproven new technology where our country's energy policy is concerned ("Gotta dance with the one who brought you"). They argue that they're now finally able to make a decent profit after all the R&D costs they've incurred, and all the federal hurdles they've had to overcome in their steadfast struggle to employ God-fearing Americans and keep their families safe from soviets and socialists who would undermine our way of life. They argue that liberal thinking is the antithesis of working class ethics, and that updating technology leads to robots and the end of the American worker. Some think it's better to keep doing what we've been doing because we just can't know the consequences of changing it.

Alright.

I meant conservatism per say, as in the ideology.

 

[MigL]

I was the one who originally mentioned WVirginia ( top of page 4 ), in response to a post about moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources of energy. And while it is a laudable goal, WVirginia is an example of how things can go wrong.
Not because its a liberal problem or a conservative problem.
It is a problem with implementation of this worthwhile goal, that successive governments have ignored for years. Sure, the coal industry is dying, no longer needed or relevant, but no government for the last 40 yrs has encouraged new industry into the area.
Outside of the big centers, the rest of the population feels forgotten and betrayed by both parties in government.

All these people ( not just WVirginia ) who have become disenfranchised with Democrat/Republican Government decided to go with an 'outsider'.
That is my opinion as to how you ended up with your current President.

Just thought I would explain how WVirginia originally came into this discussion.
It was meant to show how the ideals expressed in the OP, while admirable, can have disastrous consequences for some vulnerable people if not implemented with care.

[Area54]

16 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m not perfect

Of course you are not. You are a liberal.

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

no government for the last 40 yrs has encouraged new industry into the area.
Outside of the big centers, the rest of the population feels forgotten and betrayed by both parties in government.

West VA does have it own leadership. They have a Governor, state legislators, city counsels, Mayors, and etc.When we look at economically thriving states it isn't the Federal Govt that brought industry to them. California's wine industry alone makes 10 times the revenue West VA's Coal industry and I have never heard a National candidate talk about the importance of wineries. Moreover alcohol has many federal restrictions and additional taxes placed on it. which are exactly the type of things many claim hurt industry. Within California itself they built up their own industries and as a result have wildly healthy tourism, media, tech, entertainment, real estate/construction, agriculture, and education industries. Democrats running for national office mostly ignore California because they know they will win there. Republicans criticize California because they know they won't win there. Neither party on the national level is promising or helping California with much of anything. 

California, New York,  and Texas account for 34% of the entire GDP of the United States. Those 3 states. During National elections those 3 states are seldom even visited by politicians. Instead Politicians focus on smaller "battle ground" states where simple singularly focused narratives are most successful. It isn't national political figures making the top economies what they are. It is local govts and leaders. Look at Texas. Despite having some of the nations ugliest Coastline and 2 thirds the state being an arid desert Texas has the 5th highest tourism revenue in the Country. Cities like San Antonio and Austin have found ways to tap into fine dining, bar scenes, live music, and mix it all with Spanish infused architecture and create places people want to visit.  

Rather than embracing new industries internally West VA has allowed the discussion to focus on old ones. They need a visionary Governor, a visionary Mayor in Charleston, and not a President that promises them coal mining  jumps. They also have to be more inclusive and open to change. States like CA, TX, and NY are diverse and also changing. 

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I meant conservatism per say, as in the ideology.

Perhaps this is what we need to start warding ourselves against. We have these ideologies that have become so ambiguous they have no more relevance for us. The ideologies can take on whatever meaning is assigned to them. Is it liberal to want everyone to be educated to a certain standard, or is it just conservative common sense to keep up with the rest of the world? Is it conservative to push for a strong military, or is it also what liberals want in order to back up diplomatic efforts? Is it liberal to listen to the climate experts you've hired, or is it conservative to ignore them because they're telling you things you don't want to hear? Is it liberal to help those in need, or is it conservative to insist they help themselves? 

I know from discussions here that most of the caricatures of liberals and conservatives are just that. Nobody is openly pushing for war. Nobody is suggesting we ignore security at our borders. Nobody wants our children to be uneducated. Nobody wants to rob the wealth from the wealthy. Nobody wants more crime. Nobody wants to make it easier for our enemies, and nobody wants to turn away a potential friend.

But when we use these labels, we've made all these assumptions at some point or another. 

And it's a hard habit to break. I still have a hard time with people who make the "conservative" choice not to vote for school funding because their own children have moved out of the public school system, or are in private schools. Don't they want to deal with educated people? I feel like if you don't do everything possible to help educate your fellow man, then you deserve having ignorance thwart you at every turn. I feel this is a liberal stance, and I'd love to know why it's conservative to spend less on public education. Is there another aspect at work here? Is it not really about spending less?

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps this is what we need to start warding ourselves against. We have these ideologies that have become so ambiguous they have no more relevance for us. The ideologies can take on whatever meaning is assigned to them. Is it liberal to want everyone to be educated to a certain standard, or is it just conservative common sense to keep up with the rest of the world? Is it conservative to push for a strong military, or is it also what liberals want in order to back up diplomatic efforts? Is it liberal to listen to the climate experts you've hired, or is it conservative to ignore them because they're telling you things you don't want to hear? Is it liberal to help those in need, or is it conservative to insist they help themselves? 

I know from discussions here that most of the caricatures of liberals and conservatives are just that. Nobody is openly pushing for war. Nobody is suggesting we ignore security at our borders. Nobody wants our children to be uneducated. Nobody wants to rob the wealth from the wealthy. Nobody wants more crime. Nobody wants to make it easier for our enemies, and nobody wants to turn away a potential friend.

But when we use these labels, we've made all these assumptions at some point or another. 

And it's a hard habit to break. I still have a hard time with people who make the "conservative" choice not to vote for school funding because their own children have moved out of the public school system, or are in private schools. Don't they want to deal with educated people? I feel like if you don't do everything possible to help educate your fellow man, then you deserve having ignorance thwart you at every turn. I feel this is a liberal stance, and I'd love to know why it's conservative to spend less on public education. Is there another aspect at work here? Is it not really about spending less?

Indeed, whatever ism you follow, it can only succeed if we invest in people/future/people...

Edited February 5, 2018 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

West VA does have it own leadership. They have a Governor, state legislators, city counsels, Mayors, and etc.When we look at economically thriving states it isn't the Federal Govt that brought industry to them. California's wine industry alone makes 10 times the revenue West VA's Coal industry and I have never heard a National candidate talk about the importance of wineries.

1

If the wine industry in California disappeared, they wouldn't lose 40% of their GDP.

So, I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.

Not defending coal, but that's definitely not a good comparison.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

20 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If the wine industry in California disappeared, they wouldn't lose 40% of their GDP.

So, I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.

Not defending coal, but that's definitely not a good comparison.

That was my point. States need more than single industries. West VA needs to diversify. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

if you don't do everything possible to help educate your fellow man, then you deserve having ignorance thwart you at every turn

sort of like what's happening with the representatives we've been electing?

[Phi for All]

Just now, iNow said:

sort of like what's happening with the representatives we've been electing?

They liked it when it helped get a billionaire elected on a "let's help the common man" platform, but it wasn't so much fun when the KKK started killing protesters with cars. Clinton should have called ignorance deplorable instead of the ignorant.

Since you can't know how badly you need to know what you don't know, I think it's up to a responsible society to make sure we're not breeding ignorance. That doesn't seem like it's skewed left or right, it just seems like common sense.

[MigL]

Why is this labelling/branding or self-identification with Democrat/Republican so prevalent in the US ?
Ther are very few places in the world which are so polarized along party lines like the US.

As an example, we have a long running Liberal government in the province of Ontario, who have been involved in many 'scandals' over the years, including things like cancelling billion dollar projects in an effort to buy votes and win elections, and having senior staffers charged and convicted of erasing computer data to try and cover it up.
It looked like we might finally form a Progressive Conservative government in Ontario, until last week, when the party leader resigned due to  accusations by several women of sexual assault, and a week later, the president of the party also resigned before an article came out in a national magazine claiming that he did the same.
We have a provincial election coming up this summer and, as things stand right now, I'll probably be voting NDP ( our third party ) as their leader seems the most trustworthy.

And in case you don't know, the NDP is a socialist party.

Why is the rest of the world so 'flexible' with their voting, but US citizens cast votes with blinders on ?

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why is the rest of the world so 'flexible' with their voting, but US citizens cast votes with blinders on ?

"Blinders" being manufactured glasses that filter out everything the manufacturers you prefer don't want you to see.

How are Canadians informed about the events that are important to them as citizens? Is your media privately owned, or do you have any laws that require the media to actually inform the populace? I remember Michael Moore's segment from Bowling for Columbine where they compared an American and Canadian news hour, and the Canadians didn't have the doom-and-gloom fear format the US shows had.

I think everyone wants accurate information, but I think the liberal view demands it as part of a reasoned, rational response to any issue. I think we get "spun news" in the US, but often conservatives and liberals feel they're too skeptical to be fooled by the spin doctors, so they're all more vulnerable to it, ironically. 

[zapatos]

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why is the rest of the world so 'flexible' with their voting, but US citizens cast votes with blinders on ?

For most of my life I voted as an independent; best person for the job. And there was a good chance that person would vote his conscience over party, or at least work with the other party for the best possible outcome.

Over the past few election cycles I have voted straight party ticket (Democratic - with blinders on I guess you'd say). The reason I do so is because so many moronic (my view of course) ideas by Republicans make it to the forefront, then the Republicans vote along party lines. That means the person I thought was the most reasonable may end up voting for a moronic idea because their party demands it.

I know it's quite possible I could get some Democratic moron with a moronic  idea, but I'll take a stupid Democrat over a stupid Republican every day of the week.

When politicians again work across the aisle, I'll again vote independent.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Over the past few election cycles I have voted straight party ticket (Democratic - with blinders on I guess you'd say). The reason I do so is because so many moronic (my view of course) ideas by Republicans make it to the forefront, then the Republicans vote along party lines. That means the person I thought was the most reasonable may end up voting for a moronic idea because their party demands it.

It seems to me that the Democratic party is an amalgamation of what both the Democratic and Republican parties use to be. There are conservatives and liberals within the democratic party. Compromise and teamwork is taken seriously. The current brand of Republican is a far right ,almost anarchist like, cesspool of seemingly every type of ism. Those who voted Republican appear to do so out of anger. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Over the past few election cycles I have voted straight party ticket (Democratic - with blinders on I guess you'd say). The reason I do so is because so many moronic (my view of course) ideas by Republicans make it to the forefront, then the Republicans vote along party lines. That means the person I thought was the most reasonable may end up voting for a moronic idea because their party demands it.

Good point. Voting only the party line is admitting the candidate helped the party get elected, instead of the other way around. Is it liberal or conservative to want an actual representative in government? I also think of lock-step voting as being a barrier rather than a bridge, as if you're trying to stop something from happening rather than trying to work towards something better.

[iNow]

You should've been on his speech writing team. You'd now be hosting Pod Save America

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I think Trump as President is proof that nothing Obama could ever have said would have made a difference to those opposed. Early last week a guy I know at told me it was undeniable Trump's policies, tax cuts specifically, were great for the economy and that despite his bad language of twitter Trump was doing a great job. I mentioned that we (USA) failed to reach GDP predictions for the 4th quarter and the deficit had grown significantly. He cited the Stock Market. I told him the Market was inflated and would fall sooner rather than later. He noted that I had been saying that since the fall and it hadn't happened yet and insisted I just was refusing to give Trump the credit he deserved. He sarcastically laughed as repeated "come on, just look at the Stock Market" . That was just last week. Today the same guy said the current correction was no big deal and was to be expected. He even used the fact I had been expecting to saying it wasn't surprising or any fault of Trump. 

Now I am not saying it was Trump's fault. Rather I am  pointing out the obvious contradiction. When stocks are up it is proof Trump is good and caution is just Trump hatred. When stocks are down it is to be expect and unrelated to Trump. Those who support Trumpism and the Republican Party rationalize everything in their own way. Doesn't matter how careful a point is made.

Leave Trump out of it. This isn't really related to the tread topic, is an attack on the Republican Party(which I have no problem about, but this is neither the time nor the place), and this type of thing is what lead to the other thread being closed in the first place.

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Leave Trump out of it. 

!

Moderator Note

Yes, please. Can we stick to the points of the OP? You can always start up a new thread if you want to go off on a tangent.

Posts have been split. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/113321-lack-of-bipartisanship-split-from-liberal-views-explained/