Liberal Idealist - US forces will bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, fostering perpetual peace and an end to terrorism in the that region. Money or personal sacrifice is no object because this will, in turn, make the world a safer and freindlier place.
Conservative Realist - the US hegamon must invest in its own economy, secure its own borders, and keep a far distance from foreign affairs. This will attract foreign investors by demonstrating that it operates according to accepted accounting and fiduciary principles. In turn, it sustains its position of hyperpower in the world.
Which one should I be?
2007-02-21 01:27:42 · 11 answers · asked by Richard O 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Good question and I can see from the answers that many, if not most, people don't know the true definitions of liberal and conservative. Yes, the Iraq misadventure is in reality a liberal philosophy-which makes Bush a liberal, at least on that subject. Best to make sure one fully understands both views and goes with what fits his personal beliefs and goals-labels are largely irrelevant and generally misunderstood anyway.
2007-02-21 03:14:14 · answer #1 · answered by golfer7 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Realistic Idealist
2016-03-29 05:33:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it's funny that you should say that the liberal point-of-view is that US forces will bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. After all, that's the main argument that Bush and his cohorts used to justify the war after no WMDs were found. Does that mean that Bush & Co. have become liberals?:)
2007-02-21 01:38:56 · answer #3 · answered by tangerine 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I like your definitions -- both are substantial and well-considered.
However, I think there's a fatal flaw in that you're viewing yourself by a particular definition. By its very nature, politics is a fluid pattern of behavior, widely varied not just on a global stage, but within each district and town.
By employing a strict definition to yourself, then, you are already in conflict with geopolitical forces; that will only lead to further confusion for you.
I suggest a moderate approach, employing both extremes but letting your intellect dictate which is the better course to follow.
Best wishes.
2007-02-21 01:35:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
By your definition, Bush is a liberal idealist, which simply does not compute.
For a regular dose of conservative realism, see Lou Dobbs.
2007-02-21 01:45:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think being a Practical Moderate is more the right choice. It allows you to blend the right amount of conservatism to be realistic, but, gives you the injection of idealism to take into accounts original and imaginative solutions to increase profitability
2007-02-21 01:34:07 · answer #6 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A Liberal Realist would be far better than either of those two options.
Consevatives aren't realist by any means. Look at the war in Iraq! Most of them don't want to serve in a war in which there is no final victory plan.
2007-02-21 01:33:57 · answer #7 · answered by Villain 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Join the vast majority and become an Inert Apathist!
2007-02-21 02:16:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you have it backwards. The Liberals aren't the ones who want to spread "Democracy", that is the Republicans who have started this war. Every Liberal I know thinks we should secure and take control of our own Country and tend to our own business.
2007-02-21 01:33:07 · answer #9 · answered by blackdahiliamurder 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I, sir, am a Liberal, an Idealist, and a Realist.
And I would choose NEITHER of your bogus choices.
Your "question" is disingenuous.
2007-02-21 01:32:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋