Monday, September 29, 2008
Independents- the first question!
I always assumed that "independents" meant people who were not registered with either the Republican or Democratic parties. However, after watching Lou Dobbs tonight, I'm suddenly wondering if perhaps, like many things, I have assumed too much. He seems rather libertarian to me. Is that the case with all "independents"? Does the term more closely link to the idea of American federalism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
Not sure; I always thought it just meant not registered Republican or Democrat also (or not lining up completely with either party at least:). It's interesting though that it's not easy to define. Take Ron Paul (haha, you knew that was coming;). He's a Libertarian, but he says he's a Republican, even though he strongly disagrees with most "Republicans" in office right now (especially about foreign policy), but he argues that's what Republican really means: non-interventionist, conservative, etc. So... I dunno, hehe. :) To me, Democrats & Republicans are sounding more & more the same, which also makes it hard to know what's what. (So Independent might mean anybody that disagrees with them?)
hmmm interesting thought.
It's particularily interesting that Paul doesn't agree with the Reb.s but still calls himself one. Is he then linking back to the ideas that created the party in the first place, or with what he feels the party should stand for as being on the right side of the American spectrum?
I think he would say the ideas that created the party in the first place -- he would say that Republicans were originally supposed to be for small government, and he would argue that a non-interventionist foreign policy goes with that (no nation-building, in his words:).
you sure are good at keeping me up, kimberly :P (we're a bad influence on each other;)
I think I'll have to limit how much time I spend here!
I lean towards libertarian as well...towards the ideals of what the republican party "should" be. (Although chelley, I still stand with my previous complaints about Paul's foreign policy as being very dangerous--other than that I really like him ;-P). I agree that many republicans in office right now (including the current presidential candidate) are too liberal for my tastes...but unfortunately it is politics as usual. In order to keep someone who is REALLY liberal out of the office, you pretty much have to vote Republican--otherwise the vote will be split and the democrat will get in...and that is very scary in my opinion...
Hello HM!!! Good to see you!
Got to love vote splitting! That is a major consideration in Canadian politics.
I certainly wouldn't consider Bush or McCain as liberal at all! I would consider them both as neo-conservative. At least in Canadian politics, the size of the goverment isn't particularly a left-right issue. It's more a traditional government-neo-conservatism issue.
I guess I don't know what neo-conservative means...
really?
as in I'm using the term in a way that makes you realize that we have different definitions of the term, or is it not a term that's often used in your politics?
as in I've never used the term
Oh my goodness! This is going to rock your world!!!!
Bush is a neo-conservative. Karl Rove, Cheney- these guys are quint essential neo-conservatives. That is why they are not doing the things that you feel traditional Republicans should be doing. Neo-Cons are big central government, huge military thinkers.
Wikipedia has a good general introduction. There are a bunch of others, but I'm not sure where you usually read and they tend to be very for or against the concept.
oooh...I take back what I said earlier about leaning towards libertarian--it is NOT what I thought it was according to wikipedia! And chelley, I don't think Ron Paul fits that definition either...I think he is more of a paleoconservative.
I don't really fit perfectly into any of the definitions actually...although I guess according to the wikipedia definition, I would be more of a neo-conservative on the military front and a paleoconservative on everything else.
I've always just referred to myself as a conservative--who knew there were so many levels????
This is so interesting! Things are making so much sense now! I always assumed that there was a debate within the Repulican party about all the different types of conservatism- but I guess not!
Libertarians are basically anarchists. Ron Paul does seem to espouse some of those ideas, but yes, he also has paleo leanings. Bush is Neo so that's why I've always been confused at why you were surprised at the results.
HM- are you sure that you agree with NC on the military front? They espouce the right to pre-emptive strikes and working against the UN. I didn't think the Wiki article was very clear on that point.
Interestingly, Neos can be fairly left as they are in Canada. (They're still our right wing but are further left than your left.) It's funny because we don't really have a traditional conservative party anymore.
I disagree that libertarian necessarily equals anarchist.
Definition of anarchist (f/ dictionary.com):
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
Definition of libertarian (also f/ dictionary.com):
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will
3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.
If you’re a libertarian you’re for people having individual rights. Anarchists don’t respect other individuals’ rights if they’re all for violence. They are both against big government, but so are conservatives (well, less & less so;). I suppose you could start out as libertarian and go so extreme as to become anarchist but the two aren’t the same, imo. OK, I just checked libertarianism on wikipedia and I don’t like it: anarchist communist, libertarian socialist, and other left-libertarian groups?? To me, those don’t go together! Libertarian has to do with the individual and socialism has to do with the group! So confusing. It sounds like libertarian can mean a lot of things. No wonder Ron Paul prefers to call himself a Republican/conservative, except those terms are pretty tainted nowadays.
As for Bush and McCain not being liberal but being neo-conservative, I think they’re pretty similar in a lot of ways; I think it’s just a matter of semantics. Imo, neo-conservatives are called that because they’re more liberal/pro-big-government conservatives.
This is from Wikipedia (under “Libertarianism”): “Age of Enlightenment ideas of "individual liberty, constitutionally limited government, peace, and reliance on the institutions of civil society and the free market for social order and economic prosperity" were the basis of what became know as liberalism in the 19th century. While it kept that meaning in most of the world "modern liberalism in the United States" began to mean a more statist viewpoint. Over time those who held to the earlier liberal views began to call themselves market liberals, classical liberals or libertarians.” This is so confusing to me. Those things sound conservative, not liberal!
Sorry, that was really long b/c of all my copying/pasting. I just can’t say things as well as others. I often think my receptive language abilities are much better than my expressive ones! ;) (SLP terms;)
The reason Liberal and Libertarian are such similar words is that they have the same latin root, coming from freedom. Liberals historically were known for permissiveness/rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the group. In North America, the word has kept that meaning socially, but, fiscally, it has taken on almost the exact opposite.
Conservatives would have refered to people who wanted things to be a certain way, and were willing to override individual freedoms to make it so. This had changed fiscally, although, it seems to be heading back there again (at least as far as the neocons (and our Convervative party here) believe). In other areas (gun control for example), the Republicans have taken a decidedly "liberal" approach, in upholding personal freedoms. In personal privacy issues, the neocons, and Cheney and Rove, in particular, have taken a decidedly "conservative" approach.
The words have pretty much become useless as descriptions of belief, since depending on location, historical period, and the people you hang out with, liberal and conservative mean totally different things. In Canada, we refer to "Big C" and "Small c" conservatives and likewise with Liberals and liberals, to indicate the difference between the party ideals, and what people believe the words should mean, but even there, there are so many different things you can mean by them.
I agree, Chelley, that there is a difference between anarchists and libertarians, by the definitions you found, but in Canada I have personally had friends who would call themselves "anarchists" but at the same time would consider themselves "pacifists". I'm not sure how that all works, but I guess in their ideal society, people would be generally good, and there would be no need for rule enforcement.
I'll be done now.
Hmm, I suppose nothing's cut and dry, is it? ;) That's so weird how liberal and conservative can be completely the opposite in one place compared to another! And the libertarian stuff too... I didn't know the word until RP said it, I don't think, and he's been accused of being both anarchist and pacifist, which seem pretty opposite also (& neither of which he is:), so yeah, words sure have limitations! ;)
I always thought the definition of a libertarian was someone who strictly upheld the Constitution and believed in very little government involvement...which is why I said I leaned towards libertarian. It wasn't until I read Wikipedia's definition that I changed my mind.
Like I said, I hate saying I'm "something" because I don't think I really fit any category perfectly. I know what I think is the right way to do things and for the most part the conservative republicans fit that.
As for: HM- are you sure that you agree with NC on the military front? They espouce the right to pre-emptive strikes and working against the UN. I didn't think the Wiki article was very clear on that point.
This is going to get me in trouble I know... :-)
I guess I'm a warmonger at heart ;-P. This is where I strongly disagree with Ron Paul (sorry to bring this up again chelley, but I like most everything else he does!). I feel that it is necessary for the security of our country to keep a military presence in our allies' countries. I also feel that just having our presence there is keeping several volatile countries from going to war and I feel that if we were to pull our troops from around the world, WWIII would break out. I agree with "speak softly and carry a big stick."
I am very against the UN...I don't think we should ever have joined. I can understand the reasons it was originally formed, but I think Americans need to be in charge of what Americans do...we have individual liberty and we shouldn't have to ask another country what we can and cannot do within our own country.
Which is why on the military front I fit neo-conservative the best :-D.
(I'm procrastinating!)
This forum isn't about right or wrong, or having to defend what you believe. HM- you are very entitled to believe what you do. I don't agree with you, and that is my right as well. I may ask you to clarify what you do believe, and definitely ask you why you believe what you do, but please don't ever feel that I think you're crazy or even mis-informed!
On that note-
If the United States has a liberty unto itself, what right does it have to tell other countries what they should or should not be doing on their own soil? Might makes right?
That is where I think you and I have fundamental disagreement. Where you think we are stepping in to tell everyone what to do, I think we are saving people from intolerable crimes. I guess you could call it our "hero complex". When dictators are murdering innocents right and left, it is hard for us to sit back and say, well that must be what the people want. So for example, in Iraq, we are trying to help them set up a free society...where they are truly free to decide for themselves. If they choose to do things differently than us, that's their choice, but they shouldn't be scared to make that choice. We will guard the voting booths to make sure people get the opportunity to vote without being killed if need be. And hopefully we will come out of this with an ally in the middle east.
Now if a country is threatening us (or one of our many allies--for example Israel) with the choices they are making--yes, might makes right. We are a superpower and I am not going to be ashamed of that. However, I feel in general we do stay out of other people's affairs and I also feel that in a majority of cases, when we have interfered it made things better. Also, many of the times we have gotten involved it was because the UN wanted us to...
I am not for interfering in other country's affairs unless they are specifically threatening our freedom. I would much rather keep to ourselves and just have our presence out there to keep attacks off of American soil.
However, the argument would then be we are a global economy and thus everything has an effect on us. There is no simple solution.
Spoken like a true Ron Paul Republican, Kimberly. ;)
Honormommy, I know you like him otherwise; you don't have to keep telling me. ;) Although I don't blame you for mentioning it every time since I also keep mentioning him. :))
What are you procrastinating, Kim? I hope we're not keeping you from your other blog now? ;)
I can't keep up with you two! What will happen if more people join us!
While Josh was busy humming and hawing over his comment (and I was trying REALLY REALLY hard to not comment on what he was saying) you guys posted like 5 more messages! This is great!!!
I'm procrastinating getting caught up on emailing. I had to email about an unpleasant topic so I was happy to have little comment notices pop up in my window!
HM- Iraq was a democratically (how much is up to argument- but that is the case with every democracy) elected government. Does the government of Iraq now really have an open choice to become any kind of government it chooses?
Certainly there are times where a country is falling apart (Darfur for example) and peacekeeping is necessary, however Iraq was a war with intended regime change.
Oh another note- no question this time :) I fundamentally disagree with your comment "I feel in general we do stay out of other people's affairs and I also feel that in a majority of cases, when we have interfered it made things better."
Oh- now I have a question- do you have an example where war or CIA espionage has helped? Or are you talking simply about peacekeeping missions here?
I just IM'd this to chelley:
it is good to do this discussion thing because my husband and I agree 100% with each other so we don't really talk about it much...I'm out of practice!
It's funny how husbands and wives often agree with each other! We tend to as well, but enjoy trying to figure everyone else out! This forum is particularly wonderful as it gives us so much information to discuss instead of just ideas!
but it's hard to let something go, which means i never get to bed ;)
To answer your "non-question" :-D...
First, I would like to say I never said I was "for" war (except jokingly :-D). You would have to be crazy to think that war itself is a "good" thing. I said I am for a strong military presence around the world because I believe the best defense is a good offense.
That being said, I believe that there is a purpose for war--and I consider that purpose to be a. for protecting our people, and b. to advance freedom and keep others safe...which I believe serves to protect us in the long run.
The Bible clearly says there is a time for war. And Moses claims one of the many aspects of God is that He is a warrior (Ex. 15:3). And frankly, if you were to study wars in the Old Testament that God Himself ordained, you would think our wars were “civilized”.
And I believe that "good" has come about because of war...not that war itself is good--and if we lived in a non-sin-cursed world, war wouldn't even be an issue--but God's purposes can be accomplished through the "tool" of war.
Our Civil War (which killed more Americans than all other wars combined) kept our country together and had the added benefit of freeing slaves. WWII saved millions of lives from being taken over by a madman. And yes, the Iraq war was a regime change...as was WWII. Sadaam Hussein, by his own words, ruled by an iron fist. This could also be read as ruled by use of genocide, chemical warfare and destroying entire villages that disagreed with him through mass shootings and torture. Regardless of your belief on the reasons why we went to war, you cannot argue that the world would have been better off with Sadaam still in power.
Hindsight is 20/20. We can look back and see mistakes we made and say we should have done this differently, etc. but we can also see things we did right. And I think that we won’t know completely whether this war was a “good” war or not until it is completely over and we can see an end result. And Biblically speaking, there are going to me more wars before Christ’s return—the world isn’t going to get any better!
However I was primarily speaking of peacekeeping missions since technically the US has only “declared” war a handful of times. We have saved countless lives throughout the world by the use of force—Bosnia would be a good example. When I lived in Iowa, I personally knew several Bosnian refugees who were saved from horrible conditions by the U.S. and came here for their freedom. And there are many Iraqis and Afghanis who would argue that their life is better now as well.
The US has conducted useful humanitarian actions all over the world, especially in terms of natural disasters for example the response to the huge earthquake in Pakistan and the tsunami disaster. The same massive logistics train that makes it possible for the US military to go around "invading" smaller countries at the drop of a hat makes it very useful for disaster relief operations.
I am not as familiar with the CIA—never really did any research on it, but I know since 2001, CIA has disrupted attacks that could have been on the same scales as those of 9/11 -- the U.K. airliner plot, the takedowns of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mullah Dadullah and other terrorists. The “problem” with the CIA is by its very nature, you only hear about it when things go bad. You don’t hear about the things that it did right until years later because telling everyone about it would have an effect on many other projects they are working on.
As I’ve said before, it all depends on your perspective. If you are pre-disposed to see America as “meddling” in others affairs, you can find many examples of where that turned out bad. If you are pre-disposed (as I am) to view America in a good light, you can find many examples of people who have been freed, helped, saved and had their lives changed for the better because of our "interference". Unfortunately, because it makes a “better” story, the media is more likely to show the bad stuff we’ve done instead of the good stuff and that is affecting our image around the world and our moral within our own country. The stories of the good we have done are out there...they are just not as readily told.
FYI...when I said "I believe the best defense is a good offense" I didn't mean that I think it is a good idea to go around attacking people who disagree with us...I meant that having a large military protects us from people who don't like us simply because the military is so large...
Thank you for your detailed reply, and your clarification.
So more so you're saying that the best defense is the ability to possibly put out a good offence- not that pre-emptive war is best defense...?
In talking about the CIA I was more refering to their activities in Iran and Afganistan and South American from 1960-90, rather than their anti-terrorism work since 2001.
"their activities in Iran and Afganistan and South American from 1960-90"
Can you be more specific?
Yup.
But it will take me a bit to wade through all the Middle Eastern history.
Do you want general or specific information?
I'd actually be interested in hearing something specific.
Steph! Hello! and welcome!
I'm so glad you're here!
I'm working on an overview but I promised Josh I wouldn't stay on here later than 11 and it's already 10 after. Last night got a tad late! :) I'll try to get it posted tomorrow. There is actually a lot more than I thought, so I'm going to start with an overview now and we can all go searching for details if we want afterwards. Does that work for everyone?
Sorry everyone, sick day today. I'll work on the research and get it to you when I'm feeling better- hopefully tomorrow!
Which resources would you like me to use?
You said you were wading "through all the Middle Eastern history"...just curious what Middle Eastern history references you were looking at. I didn't realize the CIA had such a huge following in Middle Eastern history books.
I hope you feel better soon! (and no, not just so that you can get back on here; I really just hope you feel better;)
Thanks for the encouragment. Apparently my body didn't get the message however, since I'm still toast today. A massive weather system is moving through and leaving me with a lovely migrane! We have Bible Study tonight- so pray I can make it through!
The history I'm looking at is basic Cold War stuff. Do your history classes at school teach much about the Cold War? It's really interesting! A very very different kind of war.
I took your comment as you would trust certain sources, or types of sources more than others. I don't want to go to all the work to have you say "oh, but I don't trust such and such" if I can avoid it! So if that's the case, and it is a very valid point, please let me know. History and historical opinion is a much more fluid study than I ever thought in grade school! I'm trying to stick to basic dates and occurances that are agreed upon by most sides of the story, including the US government and note all the different opinions where they exist.
I've heard talk recently of "registered independents." How does one register as an independent? Who would you register with?
Kimberly, I am so sorry you're still feeling sick...bad weather always makes me feel worse too (which is why I love sunny AZ!)
Honestly, just curious what resources you were using. I have no idea what I would consider valid or not until I know what you are using. I'm not the one pulling up the research :-). I would say wikipedia isn't the most reliable source out there, but I guess just use your best judgment.
Oh btw...there is a new book out there (Sept. 2008) that you should read since you are so interested in American history: "48 Liberal Lies About American History: (That You Probably Learned in School)" by Larry Schweikart. Its really good.
Here's what it says about it on Amazon:
Product Description
A historian debunks four-dozen PC myths about our nation’s past.
Over the last forty years, history textbooks have become more and more politically correct and distorted about our country’s past, argues professor Larry Schweikart. The result, he says, is that students graduate from high school and even college with twisted beliefs about economics, foreign policy, war, religion, race relations, and many other subjects.
As he did in his popular A Patriot’s History of the United States, Professor Schweikart corrects liberal bias by rediscovering facts that were once widely known. He challenges distorted books by name and debunks forty-eight common myths. A sample:
• The founders wanted to create a “wall of separation” between church and state
• Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation only because he needed black soldiers
• Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima to intimidate the Soviets with “atomic diplomacy”
• Mikhail Gorbachev, not Ronald Reagan, was responsible for ending the Cold War
America’s past, though not perfect, is far more admirable than you were probably taught.
Really!?! Students are taught those things? Interesting! That's not (none of those 4, but I don't know about the other 36) what is thought in general historical circles.
When you register to vote, you check Republican, Democrat or Independent. At least, that's what I think. I was registered Independent until Iowa's caucuses this year. (You have to be registered for one of the parties to vote in the caucuses here.)
Interestingly enough this editorial article was on One News Now today about that book: (separated the two sections to make sure that you go the full link--put the link together)
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/
Default.aspx?id=277712
Interesting!
That is so odd to me that you would have to declare what you were before voting!
And thank you HM- interesting article. Certainly not what I would consider an unbiased article, but interesting none the less. American history textbooks sound more like commentaries than useful historical tools. Yes, that is true to some degree with all historical thought, but my goodness! Those excerpts go way beyond what is considered reasonable in historical circles. Maybe that explains why the news is so much commentary as well! :)
This was never meant to be an "unbiased article"...it is simply an editorial article about the book that I was telling you that you would like to read since you are so interested in the social history of Americans.
Not all American history text books are like this, but this explains part of the reason why I will be homeschooling my children. As public education has become more government run, the liberal academia has gotten to be more and more biased in their teaching (if you haven't seen it already, rent the movie "Expelled"--I have a stronger science background so that movie really hit the nail on the head for me). A good majority of teachers in public schools are liberals because they are part of the government pays their salaries. There was only one teacher in my high school that I know for sure was a republican--he taught American history :-D.
You keep talking about historical circles...and I think I remember you saying you were taking classes on this...are you a history major then?
Ok, I wasn't sure when you sent the article if you meant it to be unbiased. I think we're on the same page then with that.
There really seems to be a great divide in American society! It sounds from your comment that you would categorize the government as "liberal." Is that what you think?
Yup, history major. English minor. Then 1 (out of 2) years of Education before I dropped out (health reasons) and became Aiden and Katie's mommy. I have a particular love of early Polish history because of the way that the structuring of their early medieval government plays out in their national consciousness today. Kind of the same way that the Constitution and the Revolutionary War plays out in the American consciousness. I'm a geek!
Hi everyone,
Sorry that I've disappeared for a while. I'll be back but right now I need to take some time to rest and get healthier again. The past two weeks have been really hard but hopefully things will turn around soon.
I've been saving up lots of questions!
God bless and see you soon!
Kimberly.
Post a Comment