talkpolitics | Introduction

Entry tags:

Introduction

I'm new here. I was sent an invite, and I appreciate it. I like this community's non-flaming, non-trolling all-parties attitude. I have been avoiding posting on most of the political communities because, since I tend to be in both liberal and conservative, (and am thus libertarian) camps, I'll post to all of them if I have something to say. Of course somebody somewhere will accuse me of trolling.

Anyway, I am a career soldier, now in the US Army reserve, and a lifelong Wiccan. I am constitutionally conservative, and socially liberal. Please drop by my LJ profile for more info. Feel free to friend me as well if you like. I have a fairly thick skin about most things and appreciate a good, reasoned argument where folks can disagree and not get their knickers in a twist about things.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Can you &

foxglovehp explain something? I don't understand how a person could be socially liberal yet constitutionally conservative. To me, the former immediately recognizes the liberal foundation upon which the Constitution was created.

Also, when you say "constitutionally conservative", do you mean an originalist? Because that would confuse me even more.

I believe in the US Constitution. I believe it gives us the rights we enjoy. I have taken an oath to support and defend it, and I feel it is something worth fighting and dying for.

I believe it is a living document with instructions within itself on how to change it if most everybody wants that - but the document itself is not as open to interpretation as most liberals seem to think it is. For example, in my mind the 2nd Amendment gives me the right as a private citizen to own guns. It is not a fuzzy gray area to me.

The Constitution does not however give anyone the right to a job, health insurance, a welfare state, nannyism, and so on.

Socially liberal: I support GLBT rights, gay marriage, decriminalization of marijuana, legal prostitution, and most other things that fall under the MYOB category.

I understand your point about the Founders, though I don't immediately agree that they were liberals or even that the Constitution was based on a liberal foundation. There are some very conservative concepts in the document.

Oh, and as far as I understand economics (Which isn't far. I understand economics about as far as I can spit a rat), I suppose I am economically conservative as well.

Well, it was a liberal document, it's just that what the word 'liberal' means has undergone significant changes over the last 60 years. If liberal is 'to let be', whether economically or socially, then you have something closer to libertarianism today.

I believe it is a living document

So you are not an originalist--you would disagree with the stance held by Scalia, Thomas & Alito, for example.

The Constitution does not however give anyone the right to a job, health insurance, a welfare state, nannyism, and so on.

From the diction & tone of the above, I take it you are against the New Deal & related programs?

Again, I'm still trying to reconcile "socially liberal" & "constitutionally conservative".

Socially liberal: I support GLBT rights, gay marriage, decriminalization of marijuana, legal prostitution, and most other things that fall under the MYOB category.

This is more libertarian than liberal. Personally, I'm a sexual libertarian, which is why I also support decriminalized prostitution (legalized is worse for the workers & keeps the stigma in place). Most of what you've described above are "live & let live", which really doesn't have anything to do with liberalism per se.

Thanks for responding, by the way. I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but I am an American Studies scholar, so I enjoy discussing these issues with others.

Libertarian is the only political affiliation I claim these days. I hesitate to say that however because libertarians, both "big L" and "smalll l" tell me I can't be because of this and such.

Whatever.

I used to be a Republican in Reagan. But Reagan wouldn't recognize the party these days, I feel.

I am probably not as familiar with the SCOTUS opinions and terminology you are referring to as I should be. But at 48, I am still pretty young and don't have completely rigid political views (read: I could be wrong). I consider myself a simple soldier with some opinions about things.

And no, I am not a big fan of the New Deal and related programs. I think you have a right to starve in this country and that public assistance should be just that, and NOT a way of life. And I truly have a severe dislike for those who game the system.

a right to starve in this country

I saw some kids the other day doing just that, east Oakland, CA, living in a car with their mama. A few miles from the mansions.

Or that little shanty town that's cropped up near the railroad tracks in east Sacramento. Lots of hungry youngin's there.

So, the gangs and recruiters can have a field day. I don't have any answers, but that's what I see.

Reagan wouldn't recognize the party these days

Personally, I don't think those in the Republican party would recognize him. I mean, Reagan was center-right. By that metric, current Republicans are so far right you can't even spot them from Reagan's viewpoint. They're way off in the distance.

I am probably not as familiar with the SCOTUS opinions and terminology you are referring to as I should be.

Eh. A lot of Americans don't pay much attention to SCOTUS & its rulings. I mean, witness Citizens United & the lack of public outcry. I think the one case most Americans can cite is Bush v. Gore.

I think you have a right to starve in this country

So you would go back to the late 1800s or 1929-1940s? I mean, your comment places you squarely in the party of Hoover.

And I truly have a severe dislike for those who game the system.

This is directed toward industrialists, too, I assume? "The rich get richer" is a truism for a reason.

I'm with you. I may not agree with everything, but in the main our philosophies match. There is no political party that represents every nuance of my beliefs, but the Libertarians come closest.

I believe it gives us the rights we enjoy.

We grant them to ourselves in this way.

the document itself is not as open to interpretation as most liberals seem to think it is.

When trying to alter any system, good to first understand that system.

I think it means he likes to party, but is self-reliant/responsible ;)
I somewhat fall into that same category by way of my own personal life choices which seem to fall out of line with the perception of what a 'conservative' is supposed to be.

Just a bunch of mix-matched labels really.

/also here from an invite.

/also here from an invite.

Oh you...

I'd say I'm a moderate. There is a point of over-compensation for things where you actually do go beyond the reach of the Constitution itself. For example, the right of private businesses to do what they want, as long as they don't put the public at risk. For example, I find that there is no constitutional basis for the Federal Reserve, and our money system doesn't work.

Many people are surprised by this, but a conservative (strict) interpretation of the Constitution typically supports liberal viewpoints. Often, the "Conservative" political talking heads seem to think that the First Amendment freedoms only apply to one religious group, but a strict interpretation treats Southern Baptists, Muslims, Wiccans, and atheists equally under the law, and shouldn't favor any of them. A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment does indeed grant the right to bear arms... in the interest of a standing militia that supports homeland security. Of course, that function is now held by the state-level National Guard, and with rifles not being any serious level of firepower in a military conflict, the entire application of the amendment needs to be rethought in a modern context. Strict interpretation of rights includes the freedom of a citizen to move unchecked throughout the United States without being apprehended UNLESS he/she is caught in the act of doing something illegal. You can't even demand identification unless the person is up to no good.

In other words, there are a LOT of places where the government needs to butt out of people's private lives. That's the "conservative" side. (Ask anyone who was raised in New Hampshire, like me.) However, up to the point where a person's freedom infringes on another person's freedom, the goal is to grant maximum personal freedom. For example, if Bob marries George, it doesn't hurt John and Mary down the street, so there's no reason to outlaw gay marriage. The government has NO business telling any church (First Amendment) that they have to perform weddings for gay couples, but the state has no right or reason to prevent Bob and George from obtaining a legal marriage license and having a private ceremony OR a ceremony at a religious organization that recognizes their union. Maximum personal liberty IS a conservative value... in the traditional sense. I apologize that this has been thoroughly twisted in recent years.

I'm not a Republican't and I'm not a Democrit. I'm not technically a Libertarian either. I believe in state control of certain social institutions, and I believe in maximum personal liberty. I think taxes need to be moderate, and then WELL-SPENT. I'm a balanced-budget person. Debt makes me cringe.

So... I guess it depends on how you use the terms "liberal" and "conservative." I support abortion rights, gay marriage, teaching real science in classrooms, and universal health care. I also believe in low federal taxes, local control of schools, less standardized testing in education, tightly moderated use of public funds for "aid," reduced foreign aid (dude, we run at a deficit, and we're sending money to OTHER countries?!?), and so on.

Would love to talk at length, but I work for a living, and need to get back to that. Coffee break is over.

That's one long coffee break.

Or ultra-quick typing.

There is a point of over-compensation for things where you actually do go beyond the reach of the Constitution itself.

Well, some people believe that the right to privacy goes beyond the text of the Constitution. However, many of these people don't realize that the word 'privacy' meant 'toilet' during the Revolutionary era. As a liberal, I consider privacy to be a penumbral right, one that without it the rights enumerated in Constitution could not exist period.

Consider me one of the liberals who does feel that the 2nd Amendment limits itself to those in a militia only. However, the Supreme Court disagrees with me, so I must conform my ideas to fit its ideals.

I really appreciate your in-depth response, and for the most part I agree with you. I believe the only point where I would diverge would be that I believe that government is the protector of rights, and therefore cannot "butt out" of most people's lives to the point often espoused by conservatives, because at that point rights are basically abrogated. See Rand Paul's views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example. (Yes, I know Paul is a libertarian, but most libertarians are quite conservative, so I have no problem describing him as such.)

Thanks for the measured discussion.

I took it to mean 'fiscally' Conservative, but could be wrong.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Introduction

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject