Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Dec 10, 2019 7:28:46 GMT -8
I think Heritage.org does a nice job of capturing a set of conservative principles that can be debated point by point. Is there a set of clear liberal principles out there that can be similarly debated?
The Heritage Foundation formulates policies that promote free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Heritage does not support policies that deviate from these principles, nor are our recommendations ever influenced by donations or outside political pressure.
1. The federal government exists to preserve life, liberty and property, and it is instituted to protect the rights of individuals according to natural law. Among these rights are the sanctity of life; the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly; the right to bear arms; the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law; and to enjoy the fruits of ones labor.
2. The federal government’s powers are limited to those named in the Constitution and should be exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people.
3. Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ personal and political predispositions.
4. Individuals and families—not government—make the best decisions regarding their and their children’s health, education, jobs, and welfare.
5. The family is the essential foundation of civil society, and traditional marriage serves as the cornerstone of the family.
6. The federal deficit and debt must not place unreasonable financial burdens on future generations.
7. Tax policies should raise only the minimum revenue necessary to fund constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
8. America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system of free enterprise, with special emphasis on economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies promoting free trade and deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort markets and impair innovation.
9. Regulations must not breach constitutional principles of limited government and the separation of powers.
10. America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.
11. Justice requires an efficient, fair, and effective criminal justice system—one that gives defendants adequate due process and requires an appropriate degree of criminal intent to merit punishment.
12. International agreements and international organizations should not infringe on American’s constitutional rights, nor should they diminish American sovereignty.
13. America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.
14. The best way to ensure peace is through a strong national defense.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Dec 10, 2019 7:44:30 GMT -8
Upon a thorough review, to establish understanding, I agree with each tenet, but feel that depth is a little redundant to your second paragraph.
It more simply states Conservatives “... promote free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”
Although I do appreciate reading the numbered list.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Dec 10, 2019 8:35:41 GMT -8
Agreed on the redundancy. The 2nd paragraph should've been in quotation marks as it's their words.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Dec 10, 2019 10:41:55 GMT -8
Well, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction between 4 and 5...so I rewrote #4...
4. Individuals and traditional one-man one-woman married couple families—not government—make the best decisions regarding their and their children’s health, education, jobs, and welfare, unless it comes to decisions about abortion and then the government should step in.
That seems more in line with your typical "conservative thinker".
|
|
|
|
Post by captaintrips on Dec 10, 2019 10:56:03 GMT -8
I think Heritage.org does a nice job of capturing a set of conservative principles that can be debated point by point. Is there a set of clear liberal principles out there that can be similarly debated? The Heritage Foundation formulates policies that promote free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Heritage does not support policies that deviate from these principles, nor are our recommendations ever influenced by donations or outside political pressure. 1. The federal government exists to preserve life, liberty and property, and it is instituted to protect the rights of individuals according to natural law. Among these rights are the sanctity of life; the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly; the right to bear arms; the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law; and to enjoy the fruits of ones labor. 2. The federal government’s powers are limited to those named in the Constitution and should be exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people. 3. Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ personal and political predispositions. 4. Individuals and families—not government—make the best decisions regarding their and their children’s health, education, jobs, and welfare. 5. The family is the essential foundation of civil society, and traditional marriage serves as the cornerstone of the family. 6. The federal deficit and debt must not place unreasonable financial burdens on future generations. 7. Tax policies should raise only the minimum revenue necessary to fund constitutionally appropriate functions of government. 8. America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system of free enterprise, with special emphasis on economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies promoting free trade and deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort markets and impair innovation. 9. Regulations must not breach constitutional principles of limited government and the separation of powers. 10. America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens. 11. Justice requires an efficient, fair, and effective criminal justice system—one that gives defendants adequate due process and requires an appropriate degree of criminal intent to merit punishment. 12. International agreements and international organizations should not infringe on American’s constitutional rights, nor should they diminish American sovereignty. 13. America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad. 14. The best way to ensure peace is through a strong national defense. Those aren't conservative or liberal principles. Those are American, good common sense principles. The good sense principles & meanings that America was founded upon, cannot be divided into " liberal" or " conservative." It is this game of division that America is playing with itself that will be its destruction. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Dec 10, 2019 12:16:21 GMT -8
I disagree with the position of calling them "American" simply because it implies disagreement would be considered "un-American".
At some point we need dialogue that objectively discusses these issues so that we can see where exactly the differences are. I really don't care whose idea it is, or what it's called if the initiative / law makes us better in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaintrips on Dec 10, 2019 13:15:15 GMT -8
I disagree with the position of calling them "American" simply because it implies disagreement would be considered "un-American". Today, certain people will say that these principles upon which America was founded are " un-American." Today, what is " un-American" is now defined differently by each individual, club, group or " party." Which highlights my main point that this game of division America is playing with itself will be its destruction. Today the term " un-American" is meaningless. We can all stand around and point at others and yell " un-American"... observe politicians today LOL At some point we need dialogue that objectively discusses these issues so that we can see where exactly the differences are. I really don't care whose idea it is, or what it's called if the initiative / law makes us better in the long run. When everyone has their own ideas & definitions of everything, where is there to be found any agreement on . . anything ? Other than maybe that we shouldn't kill each other ? And that's open to debate today TOO ! |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Dec 10, 2019 15:20:20 GMT -8
Here's another difference between Left and Right. Conservatives actually respect the will of the voters even when they disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by captaintrips on Dec 10, 2019 15:41:49 GMT -8
Here's another difference between Left and Right. Conservatives actually respect the will of the voters even when they disagree. This is how it should be. But it's not how it is. For a certain political belief system at least. Trump became the president of America and how did certain people react ? As if to prove what I said earlier; " When everyone has their own ideas & definitions of everything, where is there to be found any agreement on . . anything ?
Other than maybe that we shouldn't kill each other ?
And that's open to debate today TOO !" They made a nice movie - that they decided to cancel, being so open about who and what they are, wouldn't play well - called " The Hunt." What was this nice movie about ? It was about THEM hunting and killing supporters of the current president ! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The movie features “elites” stalking and killing “deplorables,” a term Hillary Clinton called supporters of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/universal-studios-cancels-movie-the-hunt-on-killing-trump-supporters-after-president-trump-complains/Let us try to imagine what we'd hear in America had a conservative group made a movie about THEM hunting and killing Obama supporters... ... while we try to convince ourselves that there is no double standard and that liberals are honest .... |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Dec 11, 2019 3:03:18 GMT -8
Unless of course there's a Supreme Court seat up for grabs...then they'll just refuse to do their jobs for a year in the hope they can elect a president to appoint someone better.
Does that fit your fictional narrative or did you just forget?
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Dec 11, 2019 3:04:33 GMT -8
Who's "they"?
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Dec 11, 2019 3:14:12 GMT -8
You just make stuff up as you go along don't you..
Loosely based on the 1924 short story The Most Dangerous Game, by Richard Connell, the film follows 12 strangers who mysteriously wake up in a clearing. They do not know where they are or how they got there. They discover that they have been chosen to be hunted in a game devised by a group of people from the rich elite. The hunters gather in a remote facility called the Manor House, but their sport gets derailed when one of the hunted, Crystal (Betty Gilpin), fights back and starts killing them one by one.
— Universal Pictures
In March 2018, Universal Pictures acquired the rights to the film, which would be directed by Craig Zobel with a script from Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof.
The elite hunters’ reference to their quarry as “deplorables” is an allusion to a phrase ("basket of deplorables") used by Hillary Clinton during the 2016 United States presidential election campaign to refer to supporters of then-presidential candidate, Donald Trump. An early draft of the script depicted working-class conservatives as the film's heroes.
Though some reports indicated the original title of the film was Red State vs. Blue State (after the U.S. political term red states and blue states), Universal issued a statement denying that the film had ever had that as its working title.
So...not only was this movie NOT about liberals killing trump supporters, an early draft of the script featured "working-class conservatives as the film's heroes".
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Dec 11, 2019 7:12:04 GMT -8
I disagree with the position of calling them "American" simply because it implies disagreement would be considered "un-American". Today, certain people will say that these principles upon which America was founded are " un-American." Today, what is " un-American" is now defined differently by each individual, club, group or " party." Which highlights my main point that this game of division America is playing with itself will be its destruction. Today the term " un-American" is meaningless. We can all stand around and point at others and yell " un-American"... observe politicians today LOL At some point we need dialogue that objectively discusses these issues so that we can see where exactly the differences are. I really don't care whose idea it is, or what it's called if the initiative / law makes us better in the long run. When everyone has their own ideas & definitions of everything, where is there to be found any agreement on . . anything ? Other than maybe that we shouldn't kill each other ? And that's open to debate today Too! We've addressed the various tactics used on many threads here. I'll call that the "style" for the sake of argument, much like Trump's approach of using Twitter. The underlying principle rarely gets discussed. I'm not referring to putting it in the big buckets of socialism or capitalism. Take #14 for instance. My opinion is: Trump believes that if we are strong, we can make better deals for ourselves. Obama believed that if we're friends with everyone, we would be better off, and wouldn't need to be as strong. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Dec 11, 2019 7:43:36 GMT -8
So, maybe we can get to your purpose of this thread by taking each one separately and figuring out if progressives and liberals believe differently, and if so, how? you’ve already effectively done #14, although, as a guiding principle, I wouldn’t take Obama’s behavior as symptomatic of all liberals all the time.
How about #13?
13. America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not get a sense that liber-essives believe in a strong America. For years, it has been my observation that most of them want an America that is more on an economic par, with the rest of the developed world.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Dec 11, 2019 8:07:53 GMT -8
I think 13 & 14 go hand in hand. But then doesn't the question become, how strong is "too strong"?
The argument SHOULD be made regarding diminishing returns of resources allocated to becoming stronger v. allowing its citizens to retain a larger amount of their earnings.
The other argument could be made about be so strong as to become monopolistic. Now that may not be realistic in a global economy, but it would certainly be a reality for smaller countries. Would we / should we, stop once the "unfair" trade agreements with the larger countries get rewritten?
|
|
