English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Does liberal no longer mean liberal and conservative no longer mean conservative?

2007-05-09 09:54:45 · 18 answers · asked by Confused 2 in Politics & Government Politics

18 answers

You're getting it now. The false left/right paradigm.

2007-05-09 09:57:52 · answer #1 · answered by jeb black 5 · 5 0

There are multiple perspectives from which someone cam be anti-war. From what I've been able to figure out, most anti-war liberals today are so because of moral/pacifistic reasons (ie, all war is wrong) or specific reasons relating to the war in particular (ie, the Iraq war was based on lies). Some liberals also have an anti-war perspective based from a roughly anti-imperialist perspective, but because of greater beliefs on the structure of society as a whole, they don't draw the same conclusions from this as other anti-imperialists do.

One can also be anti-war from an isolationist perspective. This was a largely conservative viewpoint until after WWII (where the need to "defeat Communism" became a priority), and stems from the belief that Americans need to take care of their own problems and not meddle in the affairs of others. These days, people who are anti-war from an isolationist viewpoint tend to be either paleoconservatives (in the vein of Pat Buchanan) or libertarians.

Finally, there's also being anti-war from a socialist perspective. Many socialists see wars under capitalism as another way to keep the working class divided against itself, so that international unity and socialist revolution are kept off the table for as many people as possible. A good example of this perspective is Eugene Debs's speeches and writing during First World War.

2007-05-09 11:17:36 · answer #2 · answered by Peter M 2 · 0 0

The labeling of anyone who is anti-war being a liberal ideal, obviously comes from a conservative. I would suspect a conservative that eagerly anticipated the war in Iraq, and has been left wondering, where did we go wrong? So in typical conservative fashion. Instead of dealing with the situation in Iraq. They want to try and paint all anti-war minded individuals with the same brush. Once again, good try.

2007-05-09 10:06:35 · answer #3 · answered by InDyBuD2002 4 · 2 0

It's not. I'm anti-war, grew up during vietnam, saw the abuse.
I personaly lost a good high school friend on a war that
should not have been fought. My other friend was a military
policeman,who to this day is a basket case on disability.
WAR is not a game, it eats people and families. Being
liberal or conservative is totally irrelevant. WAR SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE ABSOLUTE LAST MEASURE.

2007-05-09 10:13:22 · answer #4 · answered by prroed_us 2 · 1 0

Unfortunately liberals has cornered that market with such slogans as "War is not the Answer" they never state what is the answer. Like I said before the liberals have become associated with anti-war .....which is not the same as peace just like the people in the south let the KKK co-op the confederate flag.

2007-05-09 10:01:48 · answer #5 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 0 0

Since the Democrats lost the south in the 60's. Theres been a complete switch of which portions of the country vote for whom. The Democratic party used to be the evangelicals now voting for Republicans.

Had nothing to do with Vietnam- it was LBJ's Great Society; desegregation and rights for minorities etc...

2007-05-09 09:59:37 · answer #6 · answered by mrstaypuft48 2 · 0 0

it really is a difficult question thinking we are in a diverse time and historic context. in spite of the indisputable fact that, in case you're reckoning on the get jointly's at present and imagine about how they view the area and scope of authorities, extremely the nationwide authorities, then it type of feels to me that the democratic get jointly should be in line with the Federalist and their conception in an lively and robust Federal authorities. at present's republican get jointly embraces a restricted position for the federal authorities and are a ideas more effective a fan of the states. accordingly, they sound plenty like the Anti-Federalist, and in reality voice a number of an similar concerns about an overbearing Federal authorities.

2016-11-26 22:28:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Since Vietnam.

2007-05-09 10:00:19 · answer #8 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0 0

Since George Bush, Fox "News", Bill O'reilley, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and all the people in rubber rooms at the mental hospitals said so.

2007-05-09 10:02:04 · answer #9 · answered by Brite Tiger 6 · 1 1

"Conservative" has not meant the same thing since the bloody Neo-Con idiots hijacked the phrase and turned the Republicans into the party of big government and huge debts.

Sadly, Neo-Cons can't even define "Conservative". Or else they really don't pay attention to what people who call themselves Conservative Republicans do...

2007-05-09 09:58:45 · answer #10 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 3 1

The rules are apparently made by conservatives.

For instance, I didn't even know, until I visited this site, that I hate Bush. But I'm a liberal, and I don't support his policies... so they tell me that I "hate" him. I didn't realize I felt that passionately about the man, to be honest with you.

Also, I'm told that I'm a traitor. Never been charged with it, much less convicted, but there it is.

It's amazing what you learn about yourself when you speak to some of the conservatives on this site.

2007-05-09 09:57:59 · answer #11 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 11 1

fedest.com, questions and answers