Why don't conservatives and liberals ever discuss ideology?

1. 59

   TL Flaniganposted 10 years ago

   Why don't conservatives and liberals ever discuss ideology?
   
   It seems we have such a back and forth about policies in America anymore.  To often I have discussions with individuals on both sides of the isle who don't seem to know what they believe, or don't want to discuss their ideology.  Everybody's arguing about what we need to do, but no one wants to discuss why we should do it.

   replyreport
2. 78

   Ghaaz Bposted 10 years ago

   Great question!
   
   I think that ideology is, unfortunately, just outside of the purview of congressional politics. It plays an obvious, major role in the lives and therefore decisions of legislators and policy makers, but it's not -supposed- to.
   
   So the media and public are only really exposed to this kind of conversation-- one without ideology. I don't want to seem brash, but I do believe that many people sort of just regurgitate what they've heard or read (I've even caught myself doing so).
   
   I'm happy to have a chat about ideology though, but I'm Canadian. So there's that. Hehe.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      BLynd Logykposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Lol Canadian eh?
      
      Decent point for one of us.

      replyreport
3. 60

   cjhunsingerposted 10 years ago

   It would seem that there is a great fog that has descended over America, a shrouding that has obscured our principles and objectives. I often have such conversations where people talk of things, as if they were an integral part of the Constitution, and they are not.
   There seems to be an intermixing, a blending of contradictory points, that have somehow come to mean America, but yet are redefining the Constitution into something it is not.
   Both Parties have subscribed to this blending of contradictions for the purpose of votes and, one has to think, for the purpose of transforming America. It would be silly to think that America could have reached this 'state' of confusion if the effort was not bi-partisan.
   Perhaps, it would be conspiratorial of me, but I find it interesting that the policies of our government are mimicking those principles set forth in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, such as a right to health care, education, housing, a job and marriage as a union between consenting adults, open borders, volunteerism as a citizen obligation and more.
   The United Nations does promote a global community and a global sovereignty, with nations as States and that would include America as, but just another State absent the Constitution.
   The question is how do we retain the ideology of American freedom, Individual Freedom, when confronting by the pathology of socialism?
   
   
   
   
   .

   replyreport
   1. 60

      BLynd Logykposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      This makes little to no sense, most of it.

      replyreport
4. 60

   BLynd Logykposted 10 years ago

   Nobody wants to talk about politics at all lol.

   replyreport
5. 72

   dashingscorpioposted 10 years ago

   In all honesty I believe both parties want the same results but they disagree on how to get there. You'd be hard pressed to find a liberal or conservative who didn't want better education for their children, home ownership, safe neighborhoods, a growing economy that provided decent paying jobs, and an opportunity to retire at some point without financial worries.
   The primary difference in their ideology concerns how much the government should be involved in facilitating these goals into reality. Liberals tend not to trust entrepreneurs and the free enterprise system to address these issues nor do they have faith that the "average person" would do what is in their long-term best interest. They want the government to provide a "safety net" or floor.
   One such example is Social Security. Many conservatives believe people should have the option to participate in the program or be allowed to invest those funds in the stock market. Liberals on the other hand point to the "Great Recession" when GM stock dropped to $2 a share as a reason why the average person should not bet their retirement on the stock market. They prefer a guaranteed fixed income for seniors.
   One group wants the government to play the role of "Robin Hood" in an attempt to "make life fair" and the other group believes it's an "eat what you kill world" and the government should get out of the way.
   In the end most people vote according to their "pocketbook" needs in addition to "social ideology" that resonates with them.
   For the most part it's a waste of time trying to "convince" someone to jump sides. Much like religious debate people have to come into things on their own accord. Otherwise their ego won't allow them to concede they may be wrong.

   replyreport