So Jeff was saying (and I agree with him) that we both want the same things for the world, but we have completely different ideas of what the governments role is to get there. So I figured I would make some questions up, and see what people think and why. If anything, if I think about them, and so does Jeff, and then posts our discussions on the topic will probably get easier. The rest of you can do this if you want just for fun. Though, you are warned, it is my blog, and you will post on my blog (NOT LIVEJOURNAL) which means you need to sign up with Typekey (click “Sign in” when you go to comment, and you can create an account there), and I reserve the right of anyone posting to attack anyone else who has apparent holes in their ideologies. Calling someone stupid is not acceptable, but calling their line of logic incomplete is. Make sense…if not, don’t reply.
1. What do you think the main role of government is, and why?
2. Same quesion, just think specifically about social/moral issues.
3. Same question again, just focus on economic issues.
4. Same question, only about foriegn policy / defense.
5. What specific things that different or our own govenments do, do you think is working toward fullfilling those roles, and why do you think they are?
6. Which ones aren’t
7. Do you consider yourself more “liberal” or “conservative”, and why?
8. Do you tend to agree more with the “Democrats” or “Republicans”, and why?
9. What is the biggest issue you vote on (like if you couldn’t make up your mind this would swing you), and why?
10. Do you look for trends in government and history to determine how a major party cadidate will vote in a situation that could arrive, or do you vote primarily on platform issues? (i.e. We didn’t know 9/11 would happen, if something big and unforseeable comes up do you care what a person in office would do, or do you just focus on the issues brough up by the persons platform)
11. Does a politician who doesn’t come through with campaign promises bother you, or do you not notice?
12. Do you see economics and the american economic situation as something directly related to the yearly budget of the US, planned by the president, approved by congress, or is it something that the previous budgets effect, as well as the outside influence of foriegn markets.
That is probably enough for now. I have more, and I had a couple better ones earlier today, but I forgot them…damn you work.
For reference, I’m going to post the dictionary definition of liberal and conservative…might make this easier. And none of that “I made up my own definition for xyz” crap, that pisses me off, and makes it hard to discuss anything. If you disagree with the definition listed, post what you think the definition is, and prepare to defend that definition (in other words, go look up some other dictionary/encyclopedia that agrees with you).
Pronunciation: ‘li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts (liberal education) b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED (a liberal giver) b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way (a liberal meal) c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE (a liberal translation)
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
– lib·er·al·ly /-b(&-)r&-lE/ adverb
– lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given (a teacher liberal with her praise). GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift (a generous offer of help). BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing (children spoiled by bountiful presents). MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes (a munificent foundation grant).
Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-‘s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution (a conservative estimate) c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners (a conservative suit)
Taken from Merriam-Webesters online dictionary
rschmit says
For a really good time, check out the urban dictionary definitions of liberal and conservative. I chuckled at a few of them, particularly “A liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet.” and “A conservative is someone who reads the New Republic and supports Bush. Without laughing.”
1. The main role of government is to secure the health and prosperity of its citizens.
2. Government is to uphold those rights outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Any changes need to be passed by a popular vote of citizens. The government’s postition is not to legislate morality beyond situations which interfere with our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
3. The government should seek to ensure that jobs are available for its citizens, a favorable balance of trade is established and maintained, the value of the dollar is healthy, and that the government is not operating at a substantial loss.
4. The government should keep an active military and actively protect borders and citizens from foreign and internal threats. Not at the sacrifice of rights though.
5. I think that on the whole the government does a fairly good job on most social issues and on defense.
6. I think the government is terrible at creating balanced budgets and establishing favorable balances of trade.
7. I consider myself liberal in the social sense, and conservative in the fiscal sense. I believe that the central government should do what it can to help out its citizens via social programs, etc. I believe in a conservative budget, not overspending, cutting fat, etc.
8. I tend to agree with Democrats more. Social policy dominates governmental concern, and is the largest set of things that the government deals with. Fiscal policy is a smaller subset of government.
9. Health Care. Seeing as platforms are so similar these days, how a candidate would respond to escalating health costs and lack of care for many is important to me. I believe that health care is a basic human right, and the government should do all it can to keep costs down and extend coverage.
10. I take a balance of the two. Voter record can only tell you so much, and I like to here what candidates believe straight from there mouths as well. So I compare and contrast them to form an opinion.
11. It depends. If the candidate gets elected and tries very hard to make good on a campaign promise and falls short, I can accept that. However, empty promises piss me off.
12. This question is too narrow to account for the entire scope of American Economics. For example, interest rates have a huge effect on the economy and have nothing to do with the budget. I believe that the budget should not operate at a deficit. This does have an effect on the economy, and a positive one I think.
BigCat says
Good stuff.
If you think the governments primary focus should be social problems, why then do you think we should get better medical coverage wich is only held back because of fiscal problems. Other than that, more whys. And when you say social dominates goverment, do you mean it should in your opinion or it does. Cuz if you think it does I might have to disagree.
BigCat says
My Mom emailed me the answers of this stuff. Apparently she couldn’t sleep so she was reading my blog and this post caught her attention. I like my family a lot most the time. Sometimes I feel like they get so one track minded, or focused on a small sub-set of issues I forget that they are the ones whom first started teaching me to think about things from as many angles as possible. Of course engineering takes that to a whole different level, but I digress. Anyway, she said I could post these, and I like them pretty well, so these are my Mom’s answers to these questions.
a.. The main role of our government is to allow a continuity of law and to help define the boundaries between national and state’s rights (a more perfect union), to afford every person equal rights under the law (establish justice), to safeguard our rights to live in peace with one another (insure domestic tranquility), to protect our nation and its citizens from attack from within and without (provide for the common defense), set conditions allowing for the good of the whole people (promote the general welfare), and to always account for the fact that what we have has been given to us to care for (by “a higher power” – meaning: God) in our time, so those gifts will still be thriving for future generations (secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.) The trouble comes when we have varying ideas of how to accomplish these goals – but that is why we have a system that allows for the perspective and wisdom of many viewpoints, ideally to come to synergistic solutions (bit of a laugh in reality – but I am an idealist at heart.)
b.. All law is based on someone’s social or moral view of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In other forms of government, that view only holds for the one(s) in power. In a democracy it requires that we come to some sort of consensus (the rule of majority) and/or agree to disagree. Webster defines “moral” as “relating to, dealing with, or capable of distinguishing between right and wrong in conduct.” In any society someone decides what is right and wrong – again, in democracy, it is the majority will of the people to limit their individual freedoms for the sake of the whole, vis a vis, we agree to restrain ourselves so everyone’s right to domestic tranquility is respected. A society cannot live without consensus to limit freedoms by deciding what is right and wrong in that time and place – thus, it IS the responsibility of the government to ensure that the will of the people is protected, and collective morality is maintained. There are no freedoms apart from moral restraint.
c.. I suspect that with regard to economics, a democratic government has the responsibility to ensure that all citizens are afforded the same access to the possibility for economic prosperity. This part frustrates me to death. Some economic analyst or elected or non-elected jerk can and does restrain that right often in order to protect what he or she thinks is going to keep our economy afloat. What ever happened to free enterprise? For example, 20-some years ago, a man appeared on “The Tonight Show” with his invention of an engine that ran on garbage. It was overwhelmingly astounding and exciting. We never heard another word about it – maybe a hoax? Well, closer research discovered that the all-knowing government had bought his patent, shelved it to “protect” the economy, and months later a small article in the back of the newspaper reported the man missing – pretty fishy, I’d say. Now, did somebody shelf Henry Ford’s patent to maintain the horse industry? Did the government protect the candle-makers from Edison? FDIC and interest rates are good things for the government to be involved in because they allow the ebb and flow of free enterprise. Beyond that, governmental fiscal responsibility should be to watch its own Ps and Qs and be certain the laws are respected by citizens so anybody can still “pull themselves up by their boot-straps” – and there is no Republican, Democrat, Independent or anything to this – they ALL do the same thing from their own perspective, and that means they almost unanimously restrict creative enterprise (at least it looks that way where I stand.)
d.. The union of our states has that specific clause “to provide for the common defense.” We are stronger as a whole when we unite, and there is no better unifier than a common enemy/common cause. It is not our job to police the world, but it IS our job to stay safe, and the government’s role in that is to be certain laws are maintained within, and security is secured (as far as possible) for our people in the global perspective. This DOES include global trade agreements, arms and peace negotiations, and involvement in global health concerns, perhaps among other things.
5 & 6. Okay, it’s 4 in the morning. I cannot analyze the specific things that are and are not working
right now. In general, through much prayer, I look to elect officials who have more experience and greater understanding and especially WISDOM to do their collective “best humanly possible.” There is, of course, a bent I look for in that wisdom – since people operate out of different perspectives, and only certain candidates (and governments) fall toward my bent. It is fairly easy to take a look at history in various nations to see what’s working well. For example, France is in a state of financial and moral chaos – don’t think I’d emulate them. Same is said for countries that have chosen gun control over individual rights to defense (oops, just let you know this is an important issue in our house.) In this one, police states arise from strict gun control as seen in England and Australia, among others. THE OVERWHELMING FACTS of security for individuals stands on the side of private gun ownership, and even the right to carry a weapon. I will say that the fact that we are now allowing our judicial system to virtually make instead of interpret law is part of the signs that we are headed for disaster and the total break-down of checks and balances – and then democracy is a sham and we will enjoy neither domestic tranquility nor common defense (real peace.) Lame answer when I look back – I should run for President!
7.. Actually, from your definitions, I like to think of myself as more liberal (generous, open-minded – no comments from sons, please – bountiful.) At one time I considered myself to be in the liberal political camp, as well – that is, until I realized how closed minded the “open-minded” were. If you cannot respect the good intentions and deeds of others that do not think like you, there is no openness in you. This can be said for folks on both sides, but the “liberal” side espouses generosity for all people in their thinking – and that is generally not true in practice. The more “conservative” side does not generally apologize for its slant, and if I dare use the word with regard to politics, that holds a bit more “integrity” in my mind. We need each other to temper ourselves. I am the last one to want to do things the way we always have, which, by the definition provided, is “conservative.” However, the eternal truths provided in Scripture are essential and indeed the basis for our collective morality – so if that constitutes conservatism, I’m one.
8.. Politically, I have come full-circle. Raised in a strong Republican family, venturing out to the Democratic Party and its ideals (yes, during the Reagan years, even) to now embrace the basic ideation of the Republican Party as it now stands. I believe in the need to limit freedoms for tranquility, and I see little of that thinking in the Democratic platforms except when it comes to the rights of Christians, gun owners, and fat people J . Call me a red-neck if you like, I’ve tested the theories with my life experience, and big government is the greater fear to me. For all the talk of separating “church and state”, the Democratic view appears to be to take over the programs that NEED to be managed by faith-based and community initiatives. Big brother cannot and should not be expected to care for all of our needs – that’s how we get into vicious cycles of familial poverty and passive dependence.
9.. Aside from my beliefs about things like abortion, gun rights, and my limited understanding of national security, I’d say I look for persons with signs of compassionate hearts guided by wisdom. We can’t elect someone on the basis of campaign promises and skillful rhetoric – especially if they have not done the job yet (and I’m NOT talking just about our current candidates for President.) Life and someone else’s job always look easier from the outside and it’s no different for elected jobs. Solomon, and even Socrates espoused the righteousness of wisdom – the quality of having good judgement based on knowledge, experience, etc. Which candidate, in my opinion, will exercise greater resolve in using wisdom – that’s what counts, and it covers all bases of the unknown issues of life in these United States.
10.. Already answered in #9.
11.. Again, what bothers me more is when a politician espouses many a promise he or she has no idea whether can be accomplished or not (how’s that for terrible English?) Don’t tell me how much money you are going to allocate for this program or that, etc. because things change. Show me wisdom and conviction that will govern how you plan and manage – you can’t keep all those promises, whoever you are.
12.. We live in a world market. We can’t predict what that market will do with accuracy. There are those of knowledge who tell us that China is on such an economic upswing that the focus in the world market is destined to shift from the West to the East – and that, as goes the economy of a nation, thus goes world power. To be sure, when we set economic policy now, we are doing so for our posterity. Life is a process of growth and progress, and hardly ever do we see the reaching effects of our labors right now. The same is true for our economy. This “are you better off than you were 4 years ago” is so narrow and self-serving (and it’s not the first time that slogan has been tossed around, by any means!) I am not the only potato in the pot. The government can’t fix my station in life right now, except artificially. Only history bears out the success or failure of our responses to domestic and world economic involvement.
There’s more, but I’ve already written a book. Love you, put the rest of the pictures up, please. Call your brothers and tell them their great (you might start to believe it if you say it enough.) You are great (and I DO believe it!) I love you and Lauren more than my words could ever say. Sorry to break into your BLOG – just decided to read it from time to time, due to the “we thought you wrote that” episode. Don’t expect me to do this writing more than once a year. This just caught my fancy in the middle of the night – I don’t get out much, you know.
And now, friends of Ben, you know ½ of where Ben gets his insight (guided or misguided, we take our lumps) AND verbosity
jeff says
1. What do you think the main role of government is, and why?
To do the most good possible.
2. Same quesion, just think specifically about social/moral issues.
To leave as much freedom as possible while promoting as much good as possible.
3. Same question again, just focus on economic issues.
To even out the benefits and costs of living in as fair a way as possible.
4. Same question, only about foriegn policy / defense.
To create as much international security as possible with as little violence as possible for as little money as possible.
5. What specific things that different or our own govenments do, do you think is working toward fullfilling those roles, and why do you think they are?
I think welfare is a good idea. I think the constitution and courts work well. I think elections are good. I think the parliamentary system is good. I think the UN is good. I think socialized health care is good.
6. Which ones aren’t
I think the American national security system is bloated. I think public education is underfunded.
7. Do you consider yourself more “liberal” or “conservative”, and why?
Probably more liberal, because I believe the government can do a lot (not everything) to help a lot of people.
8. Do you tend to agree more with the “Democrats” or “Republicans”, and why?
More with Democrats. They tend to want to fund social programs (health, education, foreign aid) that I like.
9. What is the biggest issue you vote on (like if you couldn’t make up your mind this would swing you), and why?
Abortion, because it relates to human life.
10. Do you look for trends in government and history to determine how a major party cadidate will vote in a situation that could arrive, or do you vote primarily on platform issues? (i.e. We didn’t know 9/11 would happen, if something big and unforseeable comes up do you care what a person in office would do, or do you just focus on the issues brough up by the persons platform)
Hmmm. Not sure. 9/11 is a pretty unimportant issue to me.
11. Does a politician who doesn’t come through with campaign promises bother you, or do you not notice?
I don’t think any politician ever comes through with their campaign promises.
12. Do you see economics and the american economic situation as something directly related to the yearly budget of the US, planned by the president, approved by congress, or is it something that the previous budgets effect, as well as the outside influence of foriegn markets.
Yes 😉