From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:30:36 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <JASON.92Sep8151229@ab20.larc.nasa.gov>, jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin) writes:
|> 
|> 	Words mean things, and the terms liberal and conservative
|> designate a general politcal philosophy.  A conservative believes in a
|> reduction of government and traditional values while a liberal
|> believes in the expansion of government to supply everyone with
|> everything they need. 

Incorrect on both definitions, both by the dictionary and by practice. 
Like many, you've probably just swallowed the reactionaries' "definitions"
rather than understanding what the words really mean. A conservative believes
in slow, or no, change. S/He wants the status quo, not a retreat to the past.
If you choose to misinterpret that as seeking a reduction in government, you
ignore the vast mass of historical liberals (including our revered Founding 
Fathers (tm)) who sought to limit government as much as they could (check out
the Constitution - a very enlightening read).

A liberal believes in expanding an individual's rights and powers. If
you believe that requires a growth in government, those same Founding
Fathers (tm) come back to haunt you. 

And "traditional values"? Whose traditional values? Those of our
liberal Founding Fathers? :^) Those of the Haitian boat people, or
Native Americans, or Hmong refugees, or the African-American descendants
of slaves? Or just those of people like yourself? 

|> Both of these terms are more extreme than most
|> people are, but they give a direction and philisopical background to
|> making moderate decisions.  Picking a side and calling them
|> label-throwing is label-throwing in itself and completely void of any
|> issue discussion.
|> 
|> 	Here's my general reasoning for believing it's time for a more
|> conservative government:
|> 
|> 	Historically, a left wing society is economically inefficient
|> and is much too permissive of criminal and anti-social behavior.  A
|> right wing society is highly efficient but is too inflexible in
|> defining morality.

I believe your mistaken definitions above have led you to additional
erroneous conclusions. Take Sweden, for example, as a left-wing government
(a considerable amount of socialism, far more than we've ever had).
Not only have they never had anything like our level of crime, but
their economy has grown proportionally much more than ours over the
last twenty years or so. Or perhaps you consider the USSR to have been
leftwing? They certainly carried state socialism to a far greater
extreme than Sweden, but their social and legal framework was far
rightwing, as far from liberal as one can get. And they were as 
inefficient as hell (they were, I concede, far too inflexible in 
defining morality :^).
 
|> 	Looking at the problems in the US, my conclusion is that the
|> government is a little bit left of where it should be.  The economy is
|> lacking in efficiency, the crime rate has soared due to lack of crime
|> deterrents, and kids are failing out of school and getting involved in
|> drugs, because it is socially acceptable to do so. 

Okay, up to this point I've been polite. But as for that last paragraph,
what fucking planet have you been living on? Not this one, that's for sure.

Crime soars because people can make money doing it. In these times
of Reagan/Bush recession, it's almost the only way a non-white kid
has a prayer of getting out of the gutter. Kids are falling out of
school because nobody's willing to spend what it takes to get enough
competent teachers, decent equipment, and innovative programs into
our public school systems. "Socially acceptable"?!? What a load of
crap. Get out of your ivory tower and look around before you make
a fool of yourself again (by the way, can you spell potato? :^)

The economy is inefficient because Reagan and Bush have encouraged
a vast ramp-up in corporate, personal, and governmental debt, while
at the same time their social policies have impoverished a vast number 
of formerly-consuming Americans. Fewer people buy fewer goods that 
cost more to service debt...look, Ma, our economy's inefficient!

Oh, hell, excuse me, I've been away for a week and haven't become
immune to/amused by the well-intentioned sanctimonious garbage I hear
too many people repeating without ever having carefully analyzed it
for its congruence to the real world. I apologize for the heat...but
I do wish you'd stop for a minute and think things through.

If everybody did that, January 20 would be a happy day indeed.

|> This tells me it's
|> time to push the government a little to the right; voting for Bush may
|> not do this, but it will prevent the government from sliding even
|> farther in the wrong direction.

Voting for Bush is a mandate for a continued slide into oblivion.
Just listen to him and Our Man Dan talking about the economy over
the past week or so - they would describe it by paraphrasing the old 
Maxwell House commercial and likening it to a cup of coffee that's 
"Full To The Last Drop".

Don Coolidge
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle