Fear of Clowns

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
- H. L. Mencken

Sunday, April 10, 2005

Liberal minded pro-lifer describes compassionate conservatism 

sumo ornament

Prudence enumerates ideas she embraces as a "compassionate conservative",

expect personal responsibility of others

This point doesn't seem to mean anything. You can derive no goals or policy by "expecting personal responsibility" of people. One can't even inform one's own actions by "expecting personal responsibility of others."

we have a social responsibility to others

I understand this to mean that we ought to help others who need help. OK.


Anti-abortionist. Check.

education so as to prevent unwanted pregnancies

I think I can assume this means education by government, in other words social engineering. Check.

How does a compassionate conservative believe government ought to help people avoid unwanted pregnancy? Have the school nurse teach kids how to use condoms? Believe in the abstinence-only fairy-tale?

being against the death penalty

Being against the death penalty. Check.

there are people in this world need our help, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently

Pro-welfare. Check.

In the Congo, for example, aid cannot even reach them because the of the fighting. They need military support to just get the basic needs to the people living under extremely dangerous conditions

Being an internationalist. Check.

shift from big government to more localize[d] government

Likes strong local government, dislikes big national government. Check.

I won't even mention the environment, for it is getting late

An environmentalist. Check.

So we have here a description of an ideology that includes being,

Summary: being a compassionate conservative means being a pro-life liberal. What is wrong with saying one is a "pro-life liberal"?

Post a Comment


I just think Compassionate Conservative has a better ring to it!

P.S. I didn’t realize that I lived in a fairy tale before I got married!

P.P.S. That is NOT my car in the picture above!!!
Maybe then a better question would be, "Why would a 'compassionate conservative' vote for Republicans who oppose compassionate conservatives on every issue other than abortion?"

The abortion issue is the only thing you described that is supported by today's Republican party.

All the other ideas you describe are liberal: that government ought not interfere with individual choices but though government, we all have a legitimate role to play in shaping and influencing society.

If you just like the alliteration of "compassionate conservative" how does "life liberal" sound?
I will give that some thought...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Erik, I think your "better question" is an EXCELLENT question. Its a really important question, in my opinion. Sorry to bring up a dead horse, (and this might even be a point you have already made on this here blog but) I've been thinking about how the " life at any cost" conservatives contradict their own values when they vote to cut the medicare that would normally allow life-support services for people like Schiavo to continue. So that's another ill-informed contradiction of theirs.
Lizzie, maybe they are thinking similarly to those loony liberals who protest people wearing fur coats but who also support the slaugtering of unborn children.

I do not have a fur coat by the way.
Yeah, Erik, I thought about your suggested name change, and this is why I am going to stick with Compassionate Conservative. First, there are conservative things I still agree with, such as keeping up with defense, and lower taxes. Secondly, by keeping the conservative name, I can hopefully better find common ground with other conservatives, and then help change their thinking on the issues where we differ, and I could do this better than by starting out as a liberal.
"Keeping up with defense" as in pouring $billions into researching new WMD for us, buying $700 hammers and $600 toilet seats? That is what Republicans mean by "keeping up with defense," and I hope you're not agreeing with them that society has a moral obligation to enrich defense contractors.

What do you mean by "keeping up with defense" and why do you say that is "conservative"?

Second point - "lower taxes" - lower than what? Than they are now? Should we lower them again tomorrow and as long as they are always "lower" you will be happy?

Don't you have 4 and 7 year olds who are going to have to deal with the debt government is accumulating at $1 million a minute? And you can look at them and think "It's now very important that my husband and I pay lower taxes!"???

How can you call yourself "compassionate" while supporting spending your own children's money on building new nuclear weapons? That's not compassionate, it's psychotic! Or did you mean you support "keeping up with defense" and "lower taxes" in ways I'm not understanding?

Again, why the hell would a "compassionate conservative" or "life liberal" vote for Republicans?
It is precisely because of my two young children that I want my country to remain militarily strong. Not at the expense of creating debt, I'd like nothing more than for our government to exercise fiscal responsibility. I don't vote for Republicans that I do not feel would be fiscally responsible.
Who would think of invading the US even if we had no more nukes than we have today and even if we cut our defense budget by a third or half? We'd still be the biggest military spender on Earth and in military technology still be years or decades ahead of all conceivable adversaries.

I mean, who are we trying to protect your kids from? Men from Mars who hypothetically could have a stronger military force than we?

I must wonder whether you sincerely think your children's safety depend on spending $billions developing new nuclear weapons and further, that your children should pick up the tab because you want taxes to be "lower" today than they were yesterday. I kinda hope you don't really think that!

And who are these mystery Republicans you vote for who embrace "fiscal responsibility" which by any definition must involve minimizing our national debt? Can you name names of Republicans who today are "fiscally responsible"?

Maybe think about this as "tough love": I am telling you what I hear: I hear you repeating some right-wing lies one must be psychotic to truly believe.

I rather think you don't truly believe we need to be developing new nukes on your children's dime.

I would guess that you are a single-issue voter on abortion and feel so strongly about that that you will attempt rationalize or ignore atrocious policy supported by politicians who are or claim to be "pro-life". Again, here is how you described your "compassionate conservative" ideology,

Pro-life, Pro-social engineering, Anti-death penalty, Pro-welfare, An internationalist, An environmentalist, For strong local government, against big national government.

There's only one point in there that can be said to be an idea embraced by today's GOP, and the rest are liberal ideas. America is very liberal, and you have identified yourself as a pro-live liberal.

I suggest it may be a good idea to reflect on who or what may have caused you to feel like describing your liberal ideology as "conservative".

It's not OK is to tell your kids the reason you supported transferring such enormous amounts of debt to them had something to do with wanting your own taxes "lower" and an insane belief that you weren't passing on enough nuclear bombs to them so you figured they'd appreciate your placing an order for some more on their tab.
Erik, would you feel better if I said I like "low" taxes and not "lower" taxes? I mean, I still would rather give as little as necessary to the government to spend. I think you mentioned the $600 toilet seat, excellent example of why I don't want to give them MORE than I already do.

Where did I say that I want to build more nukes? I said I want the USA to be strong militarily. I perhaps should couple that with saying we need strong intelligence, THAT is tax money well spent, IMO. I want us to advance our military technologically, not add a bunch of nukes to the pile.

So, overall, give the government the taxes they need to protect us, and to provide for the general welfare. It's really quite simple, really. Look at the Constitution!
It doesn't help that you offer that maybe it's more accurate for you to say you like "low" taxes. "Low" compared to what?

The GOP today believes tax revenue should be "low" compared to the amount government spends. So I know that that can't be your definition of "low" as you have also said you value fiscal responsibility, which I do understand.

I also feel my other point has not been responded to: we could cut military spending by 1/3 and still spend more on and have the strongest military on Earth. When right-wingers accuse their "liberal" adversaries of being "weak on defense" what they mean is "I wish to redistribute everyday Americans' money to huge defense contractors."

Look at the F-22: The fighter plane it's replacing is already the best in the world and the F-22 is tens of $billions over budget and was supposed to be in production a decade ago. The first are just rolling off the line now.

Do you really think it's necessary or wise to to spend $70 billion of your children's money so we can have a plane that can outmaneuver our own planes which can already outmaneuver everyone else's?

Try to let W explain that to your kids. I guarantee that they won't understand any irrational babbling about how the best is not good enough so we need to drive the nation further in debt.

And they won't understand it because they are more logical than W or anyone else who wants to exchange our children's money for weapons we don't need.

Anyway, who are these fiscally responsible Republicans you imply actually exist? You say you won't vote for people who you don't think will be fiscally responsible, so I know you didn't vote for W. So like, who did you vote for for president?


Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Listed on BlogShares