Politics and the un-initiated...
 

Posting this message hoping to get an education and hopefully not get flamed...

I frequently read some of the political discussion threads here because I enjoy the various views on some very provocative topics.... I myself am quite apolitical but it does make me wonder from time to time which direction my own political compass is pointing to...

So how about a quick recap of some of the main political avenues that so frequently get used but which I myself (admittedly) don't fully comprehend and from reading this forum I know many of you have a very firm grasp on this topic, so please educate and don't ridicule...

Left, right, liberal, republican, ultra liberal, christian conservative - all those terms have some vague meaning in my mind but sadly I do not fully understand the core believes of those who categorize themselves as such, so who could help me out?!

Finally - and this could be most telling yet - when perusing the book store isles I find myself wanting to pickup some titles by Ann Coulter - wondering which political group is she most associated with since I seem to have some interest in what she has to say...

James

Ann Coulter presents herself as a right wing christian conservative in her public persona.
Right wing typically means a free market capitalist and in our current environment usually also means a social conservative on moral values.
Left wing typically means state controlled socialist typically with socially liberal moral values.
Christian conservative can mean a lot of different things but it typically means a combination of religious and free market fundamentalism with opposition to abortion and euthanasia (the latter two are particularly nonsensical when associated with 'christian' since neither term is used in their religious texts). In the extreme a christian conservative could be a theocrat.

Culture Warrior
by Bill O'Reilly

Is the first book to read the rest after but his will give you a compass for thr rest - jz

Liberialism!? What are their views - and are there any that we may know from the news?!

Liberal has become mainly a term of derision with no precise meaning in my view apart from labeling people who are not free market/christian conservatives. Classical liberals and neo-liberals are free market thinkers who oft times sided with J.S. Mill's views about government staying out of the private lives of individuals. Somehow liberals in the US became associated with Keynesian economics and the idea of deficit spending to bring the economy out of recession. Liberal also tends to be associated with women's rights in debates about abortion.
The former CIA agent who used to oppose Pat Buchanan on Crossfire (I can't remember his name) seemed much like a classical liberal to me. Ted Kennedy used to be labeled a liberal a lot.

its like from the movie When Nature calls -- white devil white devil < jim carrey

Kerry gave you a pretty much down-the-middle, non biased description,

Historically, liberals and conservatives are political opposites. Think of it as a sliding scale with smaller government, less taxes, less spending and more individual responsibility on the side labeled " Conservative" and the opposite views, which would be a larger role of the government involved in the lives of the people would be labeled " Liberal". Rush, along with Ann Coulter would be toward the right end, with Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, Harry Reid, and Al Franken toward the left edge. Very few modern, national politicians occupy any ground near the center, as both parties are appealing ever more to their extremes.

I say "historically" because of late the more conservative party ( i.e. Republicans) has shown that it, too can spend beyond our means. That used to be a democrat fault, but it is now shared by both parties. The main difference in spending is on what the different parties spend the money we don't have. Republicans typically spend on the military and defense, while democrats typically spend on social programs--programs ostensibly designed to help the needy, ( but cynically thought by repubs to be more directed to getting re-elected.)

All this is a gross over simplification which I am sure many will subsequently point out.

As I view it, the scale is not a line in a plane, but a line on the surface of a sphere. IOW, as you go further to, say the right, you cross over into similar views held by the extreme left. At that point, it becomes which form of tyranny do you want? Most of us here do not desire tyranny of either sort, and want to live our lives and pursue our families and business in peace.

We argue a lot among ourselves, but I believe if we were attacked by an outsider, we would unite as have previous generations of Americans. I suppose you could say that out bickering is demonstration that we feel pretty secure.

I read one of O'Reilly books; he didn't have anything to say. It wasn't a matter of my agreeing or disagreeing; it was just vacuous noise.

what one prattle - oh ˈlərntacquired one -

wait your right he only sold 10s on millions of them and on the best seller list ( NYT ) you know that bias bunch of right wingers /// longer than some are alive on this site , maybe a bit embellished

LOL, so did Sarah Palin; maybe we should consult Phineas Taylor Barnum for an explanation.

Not having any idea as to the extent of your present interest or your past experience or education the best thing you could do is read the Federalist Papers. These are the collection of essays contemporaneously written by some of the incredible thinkers and contributors to the US Constitution; Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay as they made their case for ratification to the people of NewYork State, published in 1787-1788.

The vision of the founding fathers was the minimum government and the maximum freedom and liberty of individuals, groups of people as states would be the laboratories where the balance between governance and liberty would be examined. The founding fathers fundamentally understood that individuals instinctively act in their own self interest and the differences in the ways and degrees that states responded to that intrinsic force would determine what balance would be the most successful. States that responded with oppressive interference with individual liberty would not prosper and loose inhabitants and states that responded with negligent intervention would have chaos and the same loss of inhabitants, because the US Constitution prevented government from interfering with people moving to find circumstances that better suited their interests.
States that balanced governance and liberty which allowed the maximum life liberty and the pursuit of their inhabitants happiness would attract people who where not satisfied elsewhere.

The beauty of this logic is that ultimately the collective decisions of all Americans acting in their own best interests was viewed as superior to any higher political authority deciding.

Many people find reading the Federalist Papers and the ideas and ideally articulated within as very close to there own personal feelings rather than the threads of political discourse of their own day and time.

As the name implies, the Federalist Papers were writen by three federalists. The federalists were actually in favor of a strong centeral government, including a standing military. In other words, they were the "big government" party of their time. Their opposition, especially Jefferson and his followers (the founders of the "Democratic-Republican Party"), were more interested in states' rights and individual liberties. You would do better to quote Jefferson.

Note that the authors of the Federalist Papers were advocating the ratification of the constitution without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, several states refused to ratify it until the congress agreed to the inclusion of those amendments.

The Federalist Papers do provide insight into the thoughts of some of the founding farthers, but it was far from a unanimous view.

The argument against the Bill of Rights was NOT over whether or not those were Rights, but whether inclusion would make it seem they were rights granted ( and therefore subject to being taken away) by the federal government.

That was one side of the argument, that argument also included the premise that including specific rights would exclude other "natural rights" that were not specificly included. Fortunately, the states didn't buy that argument and the Bill of Rights was passed and ratified. In other words, it was the "trust me" argument (coming from Hamilton, of all people).

I think history has show that the U.S. government is more than willing to take away any "rights" that are not specifically protected.

Oh yeah, that's a stamp of approval.

Jeez, any time someone signals for a right turn, the conservatives think it is a mandate from the voters.