Nov 02 2009

Liberal Verses Moderate Conservative

Published by at 10:13 am under All General Discussions

Update: Updated with link to LA Times article (thanks NB)

Update: Jay Cost at RCP has a coincidentally timed and similar post on the current political situation – end update

The last few years have been the battle of the extreme views and their respective denunciation by America. After rallying together from the ashes of 9-11 to take change the course of humanity and turn the Muslim Street away from radical Islamo Fascism, our nation began to splinter once again into the far left versus far right zero sum game. The first to lose was the far right (not President Bush, who racked up significant policy wins and turned the tide in Iraq) during the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The ‘true’ conservatives went beyond what was solid political ‘common ground’ with centrist America and the GOP paid the price. Considering these people claim to abhor government running peoples’ lives, they do an awful lot of it telling people what to think, how to act and what is ‘correct’ – along with a hefty dose of name calling (e.g., RINO). It is no wonder the electorate was turned off.

In comes the Democrats – run by their dinosaur-era liberal leaders. They talked about common ground (who doesn’t want cheaper and more accessible health care?) but they voted socialist boondoggles. Instead of across the board tax cuts to allow We The People to keep more of our own hard earned money to spend and invest as we needed, they confiscated our money and blew it on sluggish, wasteful government programs. No jobs stimulated, but two generations of debt racked up. Now they want to destroy our health care system and give us government rationed health care (and we can see how that is going to end up).

The liberals have succumbed to the same failure the far right conservatives did. They are not listening to We The People and they are calling us derogatory names when we do accept their far left policies (even after they have failed spectacularly). They will be getting an ear full this election year and next.

But we still have the problem of which path to go. Surprisingly an article in the LA Times provides and answer using two operating state systems to identify the “do’s” and “don’ts” this nation will accept in defining the future’s solid political common ground:

In America’s federal system, some states, such as California, offer residents a “package deal” that bundles numerous and ambitious public benefits with the high taxes needed to pay for them. Other states, such as Texas, offer packages combining modest benefits and low taxes. These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right.

Overall, the Census Bureau’s latest data show that state and local government expenditures for all purposes in 2005-06 were 46.8% higher in California than in Texas: $10,070 per person compared with $6,858. Only three states and the District of Columbia saw higher per capita government outlays than California, while those expenditures in Texas were lower than in all but seven states. California ranked 10th in overall taxes levied by state and local governments, on a per capita basis, while Texas, one of only seven states with no individual income tax, was 38th.

These folks pulling up stakes and driving U-Haul trucks across state lines understand a reality the defenders of the high-benefit/high-tax model must confront: All things being equal, everyone would rather pay low taxes than high ones. The high-benefit/high-tax model can work only if things are demonstrably not equal — if the public goods purchased by the high taxes far surpass the quality, quantity and impact of those available to people who live in states with low taxes.

You can guess which state is providing the better services overall, and which has the better economy and potential for a great life across most of the people (in CA it seems only the far left rich are allowed a good life).

Read the whole article, there does arise a picture of common ground:

  • Low Taxes and Minimal Regulations – the government needs to stop playing social engineer. That means stop with the focused tax incentives, stop with the punitive tax penalties, stop trying to dictate what is good or bad and stick with managing what is illegal (all else being legal). Do the minimum from government.
  • Close Down The Trial Lawyers – stop these leaches from sucking the blood out of the nation’s efforts and good intentions. No more million dollar suits for failing to (a) be omnipotent and (b) stopping some damn fool from proving Darwin right. If a parent allows his kid to die sucking on a balloon that is the parent’s fault, not the balloon manufacturers. And definitely get them the hell out of medicine – if they want to play THEY PAY when they lose.
  • Provide For The National Defense – protect the people from outside threats, and when you get into a war finish it. Never lose because some weak kneed news outlet starts raising the white flag. That is not their responsibility nor their decision
  • Keep Faith Out Of Public Policy – This is not the same as keeping faith out of the public square, I think that needs to be just the opposite (and is coming next). That means no Creationism in school (it is not a science and only the scientifically illiterate would claim otherwise). That also means no Global Warming policies until that near busted hypothesis survives honest and open scrutiny. Disband the IPCC now, and let real scientists and engineers and others who know the material debate it. No more Al Gores pretending to have PhD’s. He and Michael Moore are out of this debate because they don’t have the education and experiences to grasp the debate.
  • Allow Personal Expression Of Religious Beliefs – We will never get to know each other unless we can share our religious views, teachings and beliefs to others. The constitution provides for religious freedom and free speech. That means no one can close down a manger display or topple a cross. Tolerance means being able to withstand outside views being expressed, it does not mean shutting down views. Government can only ensure everyone can express their views. They cannot fund the expression of religion and they cannot shut it down (if someone cannot afford their version of a manger, too bad, that cannot limit others who can).
  • Expand Education options and competition: If anything can be learned from the last 50 years it is the public education in this nation is broken. Unions cannot hold our children’s education hostage. Unionizing is OK to a point, but remember education (and government) has to organized groups at the table. In education one group is the unions, the other is the tax paying parents. The parents have more on the line than the unions, so they get a bigger say – period.

There are probably more, but let’s start small and with something people can agree on. No efforts to punish gays or immigrants. No take over of medicine or banning abortions outright. Both sides need to back off a lot. We need to find common ground and stop kicking up all our differences as if they are poison. They are not. Being religious is not poison. Not being religious is not poison.

It is not always both ways though. Being homosexual is not poison and being pro military is not poison. However, being anti-gay to the extreme, or being anti-military to the extreme, that is poison. You don’t have to chose the same life or beliefs as other Americans – you just have to respect them and honor their choices for themselves. We don’t need nor want the busy-body fringes. We want our center-right nation back.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Liberal Verses Moderate Conservative”

  1. kathie says:

    MSM makes it very difficult to be a rational center right person because what you see and read are the bomb throwers on both sides giving the impression that it is an all or nothing game. I think people are getting really tired of the all or nothing game and are beginning to stand up. Maybe the “tea party” goers are where the real middle-America is standing up. For sure there are loons, but I think mostly concerned Americans who are center right saying give the country back to the people. Just a thought.

  2. Mike M. says:

    AJ, what you are describing is small-l libertarianism. And I’m betting that both Palin and Pawlenty are maneuvering to run on such a platform in 2012.

  3. AJStrata says:

    Mike M,

    Agreed. I think people are fed up with what they are getting for their money and will begin a long effort to trim back government.

    Which will completely disrupt where the current two parties are now. The GOP has the easier shift to make, the Dems could implode from the liberal defections.

    Then again, the far right could screw up and make the GOP a minority, the liberals could defect from the Dems and a centrist, Jacksonian Democrat party could arise.

    Honestly, I am not sure I care how we get there?

  4. AJ,

    The Left makes no differentiation between moderate or far right conservative.

    Consider this from Victor David Hanson:

    >Palinize: to slander and caricature a working-class female
    >public figure for the noble advancement of liberalism.

    The Left controls the main stream media and the way they treated Palin means the MSM has given up any role of vetting political candidates.

    _Any Political Candidate_ from _Any Party_.

    This has political and cultural implications…

    …and there is a very nasty example of those implications at work in the UK.

    See this link:

    The BNP could very well rise to power by quickly and easily fixing problems that many Britons see going unaddressed by the left.

    Britain faces major problems with a permanent economic underclass, low economic mobility, illegal immigration and a large, vocal and often violent unassimilated Islamic subculture. The native working class in particular feels squeezed by economic competition from low-cost immigrants. More importantly, they have seen themselves relegated in social status to the bottom of the heap. Much as in America, where the once-venerated rural poor are now despised and ignored “rednecks,” lower-income white Britons now see themselves pushed aside and spit on in favor of the left fawning over illegal immigrants and Muslims.


    By smearing as racist everyone concerned with illegal immigration and the overboard tolerance for radical Islam, the British left is desensitizing everyone to the legitimate charge when it is directed at the BNP. People think, “Well, I’m concerned about illegal immigration, Islamists, the white poor, etc., and I’m not a racist so maybe the BNP isn’t either.” The overuse of the left’s catch-all denunciation deprives it of meaning and force. People may simply stop listening to the left’s warnings because they’ve so many times labeled people with legitimate concerns as racist. By their own narcissism, self-righteousness and contempt, the left is actively driving people to fascist solutions just as their more radical ideological ancestors did back in the 1920s.


    <i.If the mainstream parties cannot address the real concerns of many Britons, and if they cannot at least pretend to respect and value lower-income white Britons, then Britain may be only one ugly incident away from a political seismic shift. A major native Islamic terrorist attack or an immigrant riot might be all it takes to push Britain over the edge. Other European nations are at risk as well, for the same reasons.

    Screaming accusations at absolutely everyone even mildly opposed to far-left ideas isn’t a substitute for effective policies that address the concerns of the people. If a liberal order cannot provide economic and physical security, a population conditioned to see state power as the solution to all problems can slide into authoritarianism almost overnight.

  5. NNB says:

    AJ, can you link to the LATimes story or put the title? Thank you!

  6. stevevvs says:

    keepin the dream alive

  7. stevevvs says:

    What do Centrist/Moderate/Bush/Conservatives Think of these quotes. Do they scare you away?

    Man is not free unless government is limited.
    Ronald Reagan

    Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
    Ronald Reagan

    Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.
    Ronald Reagan

    Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
    Ronald Reagan

    Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
    Ronald Reagan

    Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
    Ronald Reagan

    Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.
    Ronald Reagan

    History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.
    Ronald Reagan

    How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
    Ronald Reagan

    It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.
    Ronald Reagan

    It’s difficult to believe that people are still starving in this country because food isn’t available.
    Ronald Reagan

    No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!
    Ronald Reagan

    One way to make sure crime doesn’t pay would be to let the government run it.
    Ronald Reagan

    Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours.
    Ronald Reagan

    The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away.
    Ronald Reagan

    The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
    Ronald Reagan

    The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.
    Ronald Reagan

    The taxpayer – that’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.
    Ronald Reagan

    Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.’ And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.
    Ronald Reagan

    To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world’s strongest economy.
    Ronald Reagan

    Today, if you invent a better mousetrap, the government comes along with a better mouse.
    Ronald Reagan

    Trust, but verify.
    Ronald Reagan

    Unemployment insurance is a pre-paid vacation for freeloaders.
    Ronald Reagan

    We can’t help everyone, but everyone can help someone.
    Ronald Reagan

    We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child.
    Ronald Reagan

    We might come closer to balancing the Budget if all of us lived closer to the Commandments and the Golden Rule.
    Ronald Reagan

    We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
    Ronald Reagan

    We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.
    Ronald Reagan

    Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
    Ronald Reagan

    When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
    Ronald Reagan

    While I take inspiration from the past, like most Americans, I live for the future.
    Ronald Reagan

    Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face.
    Ronald Reagan

    Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.
    Ronald Reagan

  8. AJStrata says:

    What we know is Stevevvs and Hannity and Ingraham are not Reagan – never will be.

  9. Mike M. says:

    AJ, I don’t think the Democrats are capable of reform. They are too beholden to the wealth/opportunity redistribution crowd and the snobs.

    That being said, Mark Warner would be a very, very difficult opponent to beat. And I won’t mention Zell Miller – aside from his age, the man is just about unbeatable.

  10. stevevvs says:

    I guess it’s impossible for AJ just to answer a few questions.

    He love to rattle on about the “Far Right” but there are never any examples of “Far Right” legislation in those wonderful Bush years.
    What were they?
    If the “Far Right” was the problem, surely there are examples of Legislation that they pushed that made them undesirable to the Masses, no?
    I’d say, the reason they lost the Congress was:
    Growth of Government
    And an endless war on a “Terror”
    I’d also say that is why Bush left office with very low approval ratings.

    AJ:Provide For The National Defense – protect the people from outside threats, and when you get into a war finish it. Never lose because some weak kneed news outlet starts raising the white flag.

    1. Constitutionally, this is #1 Provide For The National Defense.
    So, how are we doing? Well, we had 19 People here, who should not have been. All Middle Easterners.
    2. So, did we tighten VISAS? No, we expanded them under Bush.
    3. Did we Secure Our Borders? Well, no. Some sections got better, but most aren’t.
    4. When you get into war finish it. Sounds great. HOW?
    Are you willing to go after the countries supplying the enemy? Are you willing to stop the indoctrination of the Youth?
    Are You willing to share power with the Taliban? Obama is.
    Are you willing to Stop immigrating from the Countries that are supplying the Jihadists?

    Ok, now, how do you pay for it?

    It’s great to say all that stuff, but then come the questions…

  11. stevevvs says:

    What we know is Stevevvs and Hannity and Ingraham are not Reagan – never will be.

    Angain, no answers to any questions, just Centrist Insults.

  12. AJStrata says:

    Your insulted because you are not Reagan?

    LOL! Did I mention the egotistical arrogance of the far right???

    I admire Reagan and Bush, not my fault you are not in their class.

  13. stevevvs says:

    AJ: Your insulted because you are not Reagan?

    LOL! Did I mention the egotistical arrogance of the far right???

    I admire Reagan and Bush, not my fault you are not in their class.

    ME: It’s just too bad he must insult people, rather than answer a few questions.
    What’s the matter, can’t come up with answers?

    Why would YOU like Reagan?
    What attracted YOU to him?

    I, by the way, care nothing about Hannity or Ingrahm. Don’t listen to them, don’t watch them.

    So, grow up, grow some stuff, and answer a few questions.

  14. AJStrata says:


    I answered your questions, you just don’t like the answers.

    Reagan was the President of the United States and loved by many. He is not owned by the far right and the far right have no business telling others who is and is not like Reagan. We can do that for ourselves.

    And that is your answer from a grown up who knows the far right is just about out of gas.

  15. Newton says:


    I can buy into your points and I should be “far right”. I agree on all but immigration policy. The liberals will not enforce any restriction that are passed into law. The devil is in the details do you speak English? “Si” Pass….. I would even sign on to publicly funded education (home schoolers or privately funded Christians perform better anyway) And I am one of the few remaining truly fundamentalist Christians (believes that the Bible is true and contains no errors) That said, I’m a realist and just want to be left to my own devices.

    As to evolution, as a degreed Microbiologist no one has ever been able to explain why after trillions of generation’s bombarded with every known form of radiation and chemicals there has never been a virus that “spontaneously” mutated to “evolve” into a bacterium, or yeast evolve into a multi celled organism. When you can explain this, I will have to adjust my thought. After all, evolutionists claim life evolves from the lowest form to “higher” forms. I don’t understand why the same type thinking (or logic) when applied to evolution is right, but when applied to AGW is wrong….

  16. AJStrata says:


    Simple to answer – physiology. Most dramatic mutations are deadly. Only slight changes over many generations survive.

    If you mutate too much or too far the result is a natural abortion. A virus and a bacterium have distinctive survival and replication strategies. You won’t see that anymore than a fish mutating into a chimpanzee.

    Radiation mutations either focus on one aspect of the organism or slam many of them. You slam many of them at once you get a nightmare of too many changes to keep a coherent organism. If you slam only some you get a dead hybrid (a bacterium without a cell wall, a virus without the ability to genetically bind with a host, but can move through flagella). It is a governing mechanism that deletes drastic changes.

    BTW, there is no proof viruses never evolved into something else. There is just the obvious proof there is no fossil record of it happening. Just because there are no fossils doesn’t mean it did not happen.

    Go something tough to ask?

  17. Newton says:


    “there is no proof viruses never evolved into something else. There is just the obvious proof there is no fossil record of it happening.”

    There is no”proof” for any evolution, only that organisms can adapt.

    You make the same mistake all evolutionists make: extrapolation of the known and observable. Then the known and observable is extrapolated into speculation.

    No fossil record will ever exist for viruses or bacteria. All evolution is based on faith and belief, otherwise everyone would not say “I believe in evolution. There is no evidence to accept or not….

    It is not “simple” since any disagreement is met with derision, but no data is presented .

  18. Newton says:


    There is no reason for evolution. Since evolutionists claim that life has evolved from more generalized to more specialized. This makes no sense from a survival perspective, bacteria are the most generalized and have the greatest chance of survival. Evolution at its base is as flawed as liberalism, it is not logical..