What if we tried to solve the "which is better, conservatism or liberalism" question scientifically. Not for real - this is just a thought question. Suppose every state has to choose - conservative or liberal - and then we let only liberal politicians govern one side, and only conservative politicians govern the other.
What would happen? Would the liberal side raise taxes to the point of socialism, and go bankrupt? Would the conservative side choke under horrid air and water pollution? Would the liberal side outlaw religion altogether, and the conservative side end up under an oppressive theocracy? Would the conservative side fight for truth, justice, and the American way under President Rush, while the pacifist liberal side is a continual easy target for terrorism under President Sheehan?
What are your ideas - how would things work well under your preferred side? How would the other side falter and fail? Or is our balanced current system actually the best?
2006-08-16 08:19:18 · 10 answers · asked by dougdell 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
look at Europe... that's where the Democratic side would be going... better education test scores, better health care and higher taxes...
the Republican side would be much like the South is now... low test scores, a large divide between the wealthy and the lower class and have much higher poverty rate... no unions to fight for the workers, so bad conditions and substandard pay...
2006-08-16 08:32:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like too many people, you express the concept in terms of the extreme ends of the spectrum. Most people, no matter what their political beliefs are, fall in between. Most liberals are for a strong defense, but not pre-emptive invasions or empire-building. Most conservatives are in favor of fiscally sound government. As voters, we should never let either party take over all three branches of the federal government. Neither party can excercise adequate restraint when there is not an effective counter party with whom they must compromise and negotiate. We must also not allow professional political hacks manipulate us with emotional or hot button issues, like patriotism, abortion, terrorism, and immigration. While these are important issues, they should not negate all else. Voters need to stop being so apathetic and become informed about the candidates and issues. Use multiple sources and don't fall for the soundbites. Your government should follow the will of the people, not the agenda of a few idealogy extremists or ambitious powermongers.
2006-08-16 15:39:19 · answer #2 · answered by Joe D 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Great provocative question. The new "Liberal" side would be closer to today's "center" than the new "conservative" side, I think. In some ways, you could compare states as they are today to have a clue, say a state like Utah or Mississippi vs. Vermont or New York. I don't know how radical Vermont is for example. Also, without an enemy, what would happen with all the rhetoric? For example, no gays equals no laws regarding gays. Threats like terrorism would be looked at less sceptically in liberal land, as opposed to them thinking its a Republican ploy. Perhaps if the North would not have won the civil war, your thought would be reality.
2006-08-16 15:46:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This has already happened, the country is so divided that nothing gets done. Congress can't even decide what day of the week it is. The best way to solve our current problems would be to elect people who are willing to stand up and do the right thing regardless of the "R" or the "D" after their name and state. When the politicians start doing what is right, instead of what is in their best interest ,problems will get solved and we will move forward. When we as citizens demand more of our leaders things will also get done as well.
2006-08-16 15:27:47 · answer #4 · answered by East of Eden 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Look around you. It's largely happening already.
Besides, it's not just one spectrum. Liberal versus conservative. Each of the major political parties focuses on different aspects of the Constitution as most important.
In the Preamble to the Constitution, there are five goals (values) of the US government: "establish Justice, to ensure domestic Tranquility, to provide for the common Defense, to promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty". Now, if each state picked two of those goals as most important, you might be in a better position to conduct your experiment.
Fiscal conservatives get their small government, focus on Defense and Justice. Neo-Cons get their large government, focus on Defense and consistent enforcement of moral values to ensure Tranquility. Libertarians get their blessings of Liberties and Defense, plus their small government like the fiscal conservatives. Democrats (which only overlap the liberal movement, but not completely) get their big government to promote social programs like Welfare. The rest of the liberals get their blessings of Liberty, and their idea of Justice, and whatever size government gets them those goals.
But that doesn't address at all the problem of the federal government, which is where all the groups are fighting for control. Why? Because they realize that without the control of the federal government, they'll never get to push their agenda on everybody. So, splitting things up by state won't work, if the federal government is still controlled by any one of those agendas.
2006-08-16 15:24:10 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'd be in real trouble...because both sides have excellent criteria for positive change...and both sides have policies that don't work in real American lives. I see all sides to an issue before choosing...and it is unsatisfactory, because they are often incomplete ideologies. I think we need a strong, reasonable third choice that reflects the best of both worlds...the key phrase lies in "strong & reasonable"...and I think what you suggest would cause anarchy and mayhem.
We need more unifying choices...ones that take the concerns of the country into account without hidden agendas and political rhetoric. The very best candidates won't run because of a corrupt election process...and most of us are sick of it. They get elected on their "pretty words" and we discover it was only lip service...it's called "pandering to the public." Our choices in candidates are very limited...I'd like to level the playing field and promote wise, intelligent, reasonable people into the equation.
2006-08-16 15:36:39 · answer #6 · answered by riverhawthorne 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, the conservative side would have all the oil, but the liberal side would have a lot better movies. They would, that is, if you could actually make it to the theater without being accosted by all the muggers and mollesters that are really just misunderstood victims of society.
2006-08-16 15:27:57 · answer #7 · answered by BigRichGuy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the conservative side would have to come rescue the liberal side from the likes of osama....but at least the liberal side would have enough taxes to pay the ultra capitalist conservative side back for the effort.
2006-08-16 15:25:06 · answer #8 · answered by netjr 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Look at Detroit and it's economy and lack of growth and you'll have your answer for what the blue side would look like.
2006-08-16 15:26:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Would be devided between the north and the south again!
2006-08-16 15:23:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋