Conservative? Liberal?

[shostakovich]

I wonder if we all subscribe to the same definitions. Here are the American Heritage Dictionary definitions.

Conservative: Tending to favor the preservation of the existing order and to regard proposals for change with distrust.

Liberal: Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform.

I think a person should allow himself/herself to choose the position that is appropriate to a given issue. George Bush shifts from one to the other while claiming to be "conservative".

For example, take the environment. The very word "conservation" (of land, water, wildlife) makes people who want to preserve it "conservatives". Industry and the president are "liberals" here. Proposed changes in Social Security, the war in Iraq, the ballooning national debt are "liberal" to the point of "radical". Whether you agree with these initiatives or not, they are "liberal".

So how many people are using definitions close to the above? Just curious.
Shos

<small>[ 11-20-2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[Serenity]

Yes, I usually start with the dictionary, jump to the encyclopedia then google the remainder. One of our BBB poster's signature refers to "naming and defining things as the beginning of wisdom" (sorry I can't recall who).

I try to avoid the label of conservative or liberal; to me they are irrelevant to a solution. The proper balance between them is in "the middle". Everything requires improvement or change. The pace of improvement would be the ratio between conservative and liberal in your definition. The faster the rate of change, the more revolutionary it would be. The larger the difference between "perceived state of affairs" and "ideal situation", the higher the potential for change.

Am I on a roll or am I just mentally babbling before I go to sleep?

[RC]

by Serenity: One of our BBB poster's signature refers to "naming and defining things as the beginning of wisdom" (sorry I can't recall who).

I agree. A definition even if it is considered wrong, is a necessary beginning.

From the definitions supplied by Shos, I am absolutely a "liberal".
To my nature, constantly working toward better is the meaning of life and status quo is nearly sinful.
By the same definitions, conservatism would be reserved for times of necessary personal rest only.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Serenity:
One of our BBB poster's signature refers to "naming and defining things as the beginning of wisdom" (sorry I can't recall who).

It was Shapley. I believe it went, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names."

Or somesuch.

I guess if I had to define what I am, it would be:
Socially: Liberal(who knew?)
Fiscally: Conservative(Yes, it can reconcile with the viewpoint above)
Environmentally: Ultraconservative
Defense: Liberal(I want the best and brightest military we can have and to actually interdict terrorists[as opposed to blundering for oil])
Campaign Refrom - Ultraliberal(Jimmy Carter's got it right)

[RC]

minor hi-jack

Tsze-lu asked,
"If the Duke of Wei made you an advisor,
what would you address as the very first priority?"

Confucius replied,
"The most important thing
is to use the correct words."
"What?" Tsze-lu replied.
"That's your first priority? The right words?"

Confucius said,
"You really are simple, Yu.
The Sage keeps his mouth shut
when he doesn't know what he's talking about!

"If we don't use the correct words,
we live public lies.
If we live public lies,
the political system is a sham.

"When the political system is a sham,
civil order and refinement deteriorate.
When civil order and refinement deteriorate,
injustice multiplies.
As injustice multiplies,
eventually the electorate is paralyzed
by public lawlessness.

"So the Sage takes for granted that he use the appropriate words,
and follow through on his promises with the appropriate deeds.

"The Sage must simply never speak lies."

approximate translation.

I'm reconciling this with Shap voting for Bush and grinning ear to ear...



end of hi-jack and thanks for coming.

[Serenity]

Oh that Confucius! He slays me!

Confucius says:

Butcher who backs into meat grinder get a little behind in his orders.

Chemist who fall in acid, absorbed in work.

Man become old when watch food instead of waitres.

Wise man never play leapfrog with unicorn.

Man who drop watch in toilet have crappy time.

Man who pass gas in church must sit in own pew.

Two wrongs not make right, make U-turn.

Man who put cream in tart, not always baker.

[barfle]

I've noted before that Bush et al have made a mockery of the term "conservative."

At one time, I considered myself a conservative, in that I was, and still am, a "strict constructionist" - one who believes the Constitution is a damn good foundation for a government. I know it's not perfect, but it's still damn good.

I also noted on another thread how that circular liberal/ centrist/ conservative/ centrist diagram can be seen to make sense, especially given the emphasis on what some people describe as "moral values" and I describe as none of your freakin' business.

I would guess that many would describe my views as conservative, and if the word's meaning hadn't been changed to be "reactionary" I wouldn't argue. But the conservatives I associate myself with don't give a damn about gay marraige, personal drug use (although it's NEVER an excuse for genuine inappropriate behavior), or the President getting a hum job in the oral office, and we do give a damn about 10,000 innocent dead Iraqis, bloated, debt-ridden national budgets, intrusions into personal finances, restrictions on travel, and surveillance of emails.

[RC]

by barfle: At one time, I considered myself a conservative, in that I was, and still am, a "strict constructionist" - one who believes the Constitution is a damn good foundation for a government. I know it's not perfect, but it's still damn good.

You got me there for sure. I'm with you. Very little if any change needed to the constitution itself as it is an excellent foundation - IMO

[Shapley]

Barfle,

RE:For example, take the environment. The very word "conservation" (of land, water, wildlife) makes people who want to preserve it "conservatives". Industry and the president are "liberals" here. Proposed changes in Social Security, the war in Iraq, the ballooning national debt are "liberal" to the point of "radical". Whether you agree with these initiatives or not, they are "liberal".

Conservation was and is a conservative issue. The conservation movement was largely begun by conservative groups desiring to preserve timberlands and wilderness areas for hunting, fishing, and trapping. They also promoted wise-use concepts for farmers and timber-growers, to preserve their livelihood through soil conservation and replinishment techniques.

These conservative concepts, however, are at odds with the modern environmental movement, which seeks to restrict access to wilderness areas by hunters, fishermen, and loggers. Many of these lands have been acquired through taxes imposed on hunting fees, fishing licences, and other conversation taxes.

Teddy Roosevelt, the original Conservationist, was an avid hunter and sportsmen. His support for preservation was instrumental in the origination of the conservation movement.

It is a pity it has been so woefully corrupted.

RE:At one time, I considered myself a conservative, in that I was, and still am, a "strict constructionist" - one who believes the Constitution is a damn good foundation for a government. I know it's not perfect, but it's still damn good.

True, it is a fine foundation. However, that foundation is undermined when Judges try to read the intent rather than the wording, of that fine document. The "intent of the framers" is subject to misinterpretation and the biases of the interpretor. "The word of the law" is what matters. It's a term we used to hear a lot when I was younger. You seldom hear it nowadays.

"Don't make a Federal case of it" was another phrase you used to hear a lot, but don't anymore. It meant that there were some things not worth the interest of the Feds. Nowadays, few things are considered beneath the Governments scope and authority. How sad.

V/R
Shapley

P.S. Yes, it was I who used the signature "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name." It was identified as being a "Chinese proverb", and comes from the beginning of the glossary in a chemistry book I have at home. Each chapter is introduced with a quotation relevant to the chapter. It is a very good textbook.

<small>[ 11-22-2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[RC]

The conservation movement was largely begun by conservative groups desiring to preserve timberlands and wilderness areas for hunting, fishing, and trapping.

These conservative concepts, however, are at odds with the modern environmental movement, which seeks to restrict access to wilderness areas by hunters, fishermen, and loggers.

...and strip mines and oil drilling.

Hey, I'm from WY. You know, the the home of our first national park set aside by Teddy Roosevelt who was awestruck by its natural beauty and believed it should be preserved for generations to come. So don't try and tell me it is the "conservatives" trying to conserve these areas NOW!

Indeed, I think this was the entire point to the topic.

New World Mine Outside Yellowstone National Park3
Under the 1872 Mining Law, Crown Butte Mines was fully within its rights to reopen a closed mine just two to three miles from Yellowstone's northeast boundary that is estimated to be worth $650 million in gold, silver, and copper reserves. Under extreme pressure from environmental groups and the general public, the Clinton Administration arranged in August 1996 for a federal buyout of the mine site. Under the 1872 Mining Law, Crown Butte Mines was going to purchase the mining rights to the 27 acres of land outside of Yellowstone for $135.00 and would not have to pay royalties on the minerals produced. Public concern over the toxic chemicals employed in the mining process, the potential for runoff of acidic and heavy metal wastes into the areas surface rivers and streams, and the impact of the use of heavy machinery and land moving equipment on the local terrain led to the President's intervention.

The deal worked out by the Administration is a land swap under which Crown Butte Mines, a subsidiary of Hemlo Gold Mines of Canada, surrendered its rights to the mine. In return, the government will give the company $65 million worth of federal property for Crown Butte to develop an alternate mining operation. Crown Butte also agreed to place $22.5 million in escrow to cover the cost of cleaning up the site, which has had mining activity on and off since the late 1800's according to the Natural Resource Defense Council. After the cleanup, the site will remain the property of the federal government.

Oil and gas. Oil and gas companies gave $15.8 million to Bush campaign efforts in 2000 and 2004. Bush has opened federal land for oil and gas exploration and coal mining, targeted Wyoming’s Powder River Basin for coalbed methane drilling, and required federal agencies to consider how agency rules will affect energy supply, distribution and use.

** News from the Northern Plains Resource Council **

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, April 3, 2003

CONTACT: Amy Frykman; Northern Plains staff; 406-582-1169
Terry Punt, Montana rancher; 406-984-6229
Eric Barlow, Wyoming rancher; 307-682-9369

WESTERN RANCHERS, CONSERVATIONISTS LAMENT FAILURE OF ALTERNATIVE FEDERAL
ENERGY BILL

WASHINGTON D.C. - A U.S. House Committee's rejection of a measure
designed to protect private property rights and scarce water resources
in the west drew sharp criticism from ranchers facing widespread coal
bed methane development in the Powder River Basin.

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives Resources Committee
rejected the "Rahall Energy Bill," sponsored by Rep. Nick Rahall, a
Democrat from West Virginia. The bill was drafted as an alternative to
the Energy Security Act of 2003, the Bush Administration's proposal to
ramp up energy development in western states. An unlikely coalition of
western ranchers, conservationists, water users, and renewable energy
advocates had endorsed the Rahall bill.

"We all need energy, but there's got to be some balance between energy
development and protection of private farms and ranches in the West,"
said Tongue River rancher Terry Punt. "The Rahall bill was a step in the
right direction. Now we're back to the Energy Security Act, which does
nothing to protect the interests of western landowners."

Following the vote on the Rahall bill, Democrats tried unsuccessfully to
attach two amendments to the Energy Security Act of 2003. One would have
required coal bed methane companies to better manage their high-sodium
methane wastewater; another sought to require methane operators to
consult with landowners before drilling on private property. Montana
Representative Dennis Rehberg voted against both provisions.

"How could a guy like Denny Rehberg - a fellow rancher - vote against
basic protections for Montana landowners?" asked Punt.

The Energy Security Act of 2003, sponsored by Rep. Richard Pombo
(R-California), contains several provisions designed to speed up leasing
and development of federal minerals in the west by limiting public
participation and streamlining permitting processes.

"Just look at the title: the Energy Security Act of 2003 - that's about
how farsighted it is," said Wyoming rancher Eric Barlow, whose family
has ranched on the Powder River for nearly a century. "We've got to
start thinking about what will be left on this land when the methane is
gone."

Coal bed methane is a form of natural gas held in coal seams by water
pressure. To release the gas, operators withdraw massive volumes of
high-sodium groundwater. Up to 77,000 coal bed methane wells are
anticipated for Montana and Wyoming's Powder River Basin. A majority
will be drilled on private lands, often over the strenuous objections of
surface owners.

SUPPORTERS OF THE RAHILL ENERGY BILL:
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance
Colorado Environmental Coalition
Dakota Resource Council
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment Colorado
Friends of the Earth
High Country Citizens Alliance
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
Northern Plains Resource Council
Oil and Gas Accountability Project
Powder River Basin Resource Council
San Juan Citizens Alliance
The Wilderness Society
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Western Colorado Congress
Western Organization of Resource Councils
Wyoming Outdoor Council

Members of U.S. Congress urge more funding for renewables

WASHINGTON, DC, US, 2003-12-10 (Refocus Weekly) One hundred and five members of the U.S. House of Representatives have asked president George Bush to increase funding levels for renewable energies.

The 25 Republicans, 79 Democrats and one independent have urged Bush to make his budget request for the 2005 fiscal year “reflect an overall increase in the levels of support requested for the cross-section of energy efficiency programs and for the respective solar, wind, geothermal, biomass/biofuels, hydropower and renewable hydrogen programs within the U.S. Department of Energy."

The politicians acknowledge the "tight budgetary constraints" facing the federal administration but argue that increased support for renewable energy programs “represents a sound investment that could, over time, actually contribute to the nation's economic recovery by creating new domestic businesses and jobs, reducing energy imports, enhancing national security, improving the reliability of the nation's electric transmission grid, and curbing the costs of energy-related environmental impacts."

Bush will submit his budget request to Congress in January, and the letter from one quarter of Congress encourages him to support “robust funding levels.” The pending energy bill authorizes a 50% increase in funding for renewables and energy efficiency programs over the next five years, and the President's Committee of Advisors on Science & Technology recently suggested that funding levels for renewable energy should double over the same period.

The letter was circulated by Mark Udall and Zach Wamp, the co-chairs of the U.S. House of Representatives' Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Caucus.

The Sustainable Energy Coalition was formed in 1992 to represent 65 organizations, including the American Bioenergy Association, American Solar Energy Society, American Wind Energy Association, Center for Photovoltaic Research, Geothermal Energy Association, Low Impact Hydropower Institute, National Hydropower Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Renewable Energy Policy Project, Renewable Fuels Association, Solar Energy Industries Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Groups, Union of Concerned Scientists and World Wildlife Fund.

Need more? There's lots and lots.

Wooooooooeeeeee, you couldn't have picked a hotter hot button with me Shap.

[Shapley]

RC,

RE:An unlikely coalition of
western ranchers, conservationists, water users, and renewable energy advocates had endorsed the Rahall bill.

With the exeption of the last one, these sound pretty much like conservatives to me.

It has been pointed out numerous times on this thread and others that President Bush does not toe the "conservative" line. I maintain that wise use of natural resources was and is a conservative idea. Environmental extremism is not.

[OperaTenor]

Yeah, and I'll bet you think civilian nucular(after all, we gotta use GWB's pronunciation, right?) power is safe, too.

:p

[RC]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conservation movement was largely begun by conservative groups desiring to preserve timberlands and wilderness areas for hunting, fishing, and trapping.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These conservative concepts, however, are at odds with the modern environmental movement, which seeks to restrict access to wilderness areas by hunters, fishermen, and loggers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double speak!
First you say hunting, fishing, trapping, then you add logging, now your adding:

I maintain that wise use of natural resources was and is a conservative idea. Environmental extremism is not.

in general.
What is your definition of WISE use before you start calling someone an extremist.

Now, in reference to your last comment:

Teddy Roosevelt, the original Conservationist, was an avid hunter and sportsmen. His support for preservation was instrumental in the origination of the conservation movement.

It is a pity it has been so woefully corrupted.

You are saying that environmentalists have corrupted the conservative idea and I say to you, look at what YOU'VE done in the space of one thread by changing your own limits from hunting/fishing/trappin to include logging and the very loose term "wise use".

[RC]

Shap,

RE:An unlikely coalition of
western ranchers, conservationists, water users, and renewable energy advocates had endorsed the Rahall bill.

With the exeption of the last one, these sound pretty much like conservatives to me.

See, there is the problem - how do you figure by your OWN definition of conservatives in your OWN post, that Rahall is NOT a conservative.

Is that because he is a self proclaimed liberal?
Well, then how do you excuse Bush as a good quote by saying well...he doesn't tow the conservative line - when HE is a self proclaimed conservative!?

Doublespeak I say - 50 lashes!

[Shapley]

RC,

I don't know Rahall, nor have have I defined conservative, I've merely pointed out that Conservation is a conservative position, which is in agreement with Barfle's definition.

How is it that logging is inconsistent with conservation? Unmanaged forests become "sick", clogged with rotted vegetation and undergrowth. Soil conservation has much to do with using sound farming practices in order to preserve the soil from nutrient depletion and erosion. Trees are as much a farm crop as corn or soybeans, and proper logging methods ensure both healthy forests and renewability of resources.

I'ts not doublespeak just because you don't agree with it!


I suppose it comes back to the beginning of this thread, how we define conservation. How about we write a B.comBB/Beethoven Barracks Glossary?

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

B.com Glossary:

Nucular (noo'-kyoo-lahr) n. 1. A form of power production, formerly known as nuclear, derived by breaking big atoms into little bits. Present day pronunciation mandated by ~59,700,000 Americans.

<small>[ 11-23-2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[RC]

I don't know Rahall

If you don't know Rahall what makes you say:

[RC's reference:] An unlikely coalition of
western ranchers, conservationists, water users, and renewable energy advocates had endorsed the Rahall bill.

[Shap's response:] With the exeption of the last one, these sound pretty much like conservatives to me.

Rahall, being the SPONSOR of the bill would be the only one I would be certain of fitting the strict definition of conservation of the environment.

Shap says: nor have I defined conservative

Shap also says (earlier): Conservation was and is a conservative issue. The conservation movement was largely begun by conservative groups desiring to preserve timberlands and wilderness areas for hunting, fishing, and trapping.

sounds like a definition to me and this is specifically what I was citing.

But if you want to stick to barfle's definition instead:

For example, take the environment. The very word "conservation" (of land, water, wildlife) makes people who want to preserve it "conservatives".

then hey, BTW, those environmentalists ARE conservatives and those that complain about hunting licenses and limited access are NOT.

About logging - fine, I accept your discussion about logging. But again, I ask you to define "extremist" in reference to environmentalism. You stated that the definition of conservativism has somehow been skewed by environmentalists.

I submit that the definition of conservatism has been skewed by those who wear the label not those who still seek to conserve.

See what I mean?

Do I disagree with you? Yes, in that respect.

[RC]

OT - LMAOROFL
That was quick and witty. A hundred points to the environmentalconservative/fiscallyliberal corner.

[Shapley]

RC,

The first item I was refering the list of the "unlikely coalition", the last one being "advocates of alternative energy", such advocates often (not always) aligned with the left.

I would submit that I offered a definition of conservation, not conservative.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

The first item I was refering the list of the "unlikely coalition", the last one being "advocates of alternative energy", such advocates often (not always) aligned with the left.

...ok, thanks for clearing that up...does it make a difference? I think you just made my point MORE relative.

You stated quite clearly that "Left" is not "Conservative" when applied to the environmental definition barfle gives and to which you now admit to being in agreement.
(pant, pant).

How do you figure?

You still haven't given a definition of "environmental extremist" and now you're using "left".

Look, this isn't really all that complicated.

Using barfles very literal definition of conservation/conservative:

For example, take the environment. The very word "conservation" (of land, water, wildlife) makes people who want to preserve it "conservatives". Industry and the president are "liberals" here. Proposed changes in Social Security, the war in Iraq, the ballooning national debt are "liberal" to the point of "radical". Whether you agree with these initiatives or not, they are "liberal".

, advocates of alternative energy are conservative. They work to preserve the natural environment by promoting alternative fuels. You may consider that "Left", or "extremist", or "liberal", but, by the definition you said you agreed with - they are conservative.

Your example of Teddy Roosevelt was a horrible example to use if you're going on to say that evnironmentalists are not conservative.