Have Liberals and Conservatives Changed Since The 1960s

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 3 years ago

   
   
   8 Core Principles of Conservatism
   
   Individual Freedom
   Limited Government
   The Rule of Law.
   Peace through Strength
   Fiscal Responsibility
   Free Markets.
   Human Dignity
   Conservatives are not opposed to common-sense change. However, conservatives prefer gradualism when it comes to change.
   Conservatives support the full extension of electoral rights.
   
   8 core principles of liberals
   
   Reformist opting for change
   Liberals support the full extension of electoral rights.
   Supporting civil liberties such as free speech.
   Government regulatory and interventionist, backing the management of business and the economy by the government.
   Centralists, using the federal government to set and enforce national standards and regulate state and local governments.
   Favor a social welfare system for the care and protection of society, in general, and the lower class, in particular.
   Permissive, and often approve of non-traditional practices, and lifestyles.
   Advocate equal treatment for all.
   
   Have I missed anything  ---   Do the examples above fully depict today's conservative and liberal core principles?   Has today's liberal ideologies change from the liberal of the 60s?  Has the conservative's mindset changed since the 60s?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Under Liberal what does "Democratic  full extension of electoral right" mean?  That they wish to protect the right to vote for all citizens, a right that has never been challenged?  Pretty sure you would find conservatives on the same side of that fence.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I agree and will add it to the list of Conservative principles. I guess there is a bit of common ground between conservatives and liberals.
         
         When putting the thread together it became very obvious why at this point liberals and conservatives are so divided. In the 60s we still shared some common ground. The decades have eroded the common ground we shared. In the 60s we worked together for the "common good". We no longer even seem to know the definition of the common good. 
         
         https://www.c-span.org/video/?407965-2/ … ives-1960s

         replyreport
2. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   Sharlee, you are on target.   Conservatives seemingly have become more common sense while liberals have become totally b@tsh#t insane.  Liberals have become more extreme over the years.  I consider myself to be a liberal in the Kennedy sense of the word.  Today's liberals are leftists, radicals, even socialist/communist in their outlook, purview, & philosophical stance. 
   
   While I am Liberal, I become that the function of government is to enforce laws & instill democratic principles.  I don't believe in a nanny/mommy government (which we have presently).  I feel that this government is acting as a parent taking care of people- a process that people should be doing instead of the government.  It isn't government's function to pay for healthcare, pay college tuition, & take care of families.   No that isn't the government's function but the individual's function.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      In the 60s I considered myself a liberal. Liberals of the 60s could find common ground with conservatives.   As time passed I could see liberal ideologies changing, the farther left the more unappealing liberalism became to me. I morphed into conservatism due to realizing  I just possessed all of the principles they held dear.  Believe it or not the liberal of old mirrored many conservative principles on the ists.
      
      Somewhere over time, the liberal morphed into a different bird. I wish they would have adopted another label. Perhaps they will.

      replyreport
3. 80

   Credence2posted 3 years ago

   Cmon people, the 1960s was over a half a century ago. Listening to Conservative talk, if this were the 1960's you would be referring to the 1910's as the 'good ole days".
   
   In reality, you would have resisted Kennedy's relative liberalism based on the standards of that period. Because that is what conservatives do, resist progress in whatever form from where it may be derived. All conservatives say the same thing and it most interesting to here about the why and wherefore.
   
   This nostalgic "Back to the Future" attitude focuses on the ideal time, 1961. Ozzie and Harriet", before the modern woman's movement, before the Great Society legislation, since you all despise Medicare and Medicaid.
   
   I say what happened to the Rockefeller Republicans of the time that at least had a part in supporting civil rights legislation and were concerned about fiscal matters instead of sticking their proboscises into people's bedrooms?
   
   It is like they say, "hindsight is always 20/20".

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I was simply pointing out change. Not trying to actually be nostalgic. Just wanted to compare the changes. Just hoped to point out the great division that has occurred.
      
      I had hoped to provoke thought on the growth or lack of growth of both Liberals and conservatives.  Just hope anyone that wanted to would add their opinion.  In my view, both have changed over the years greatly. Especially over the past 12 years.
      
      Take into consideration a what if --- How would this statement be accepted today?
      
      , “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” 
      
      Could have JFK even be considered a liberal today?  Not in my book... in the 60s the parties could find common ground for the good of the nation, today the parties have a one-track mind  -- the power of their party. The people do not come into the equation.
       
      " Do the examples above fully depict today's conservative and liberal core principles?   Has today's liberal ideologies change from the liberal of the 60s?  Has the conservative's mindset changed since the 60s?"

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Great topic
         
         Yes there has been changes on both sides.
         
         I think of banks and corporate cronies ripping off society for billions and not being held accountable, doesn't remind me much of the JFK challenge.
         
         JFK's brother, Ted Kennedy was the very epitome of liberal politics until his death in 2009. He was a Massachusetts Senator in 1962, would his brother JFK be so much different if he were living today? Time changes space, Sharlee, and people can change along with it.
         
         Yes, we have all become much more partisan than we could have imagined 60 years ago. Both sides are at such polar opposites, that I am pessimistic about there every being a meeting of the minds. Both sides have changed and it depends of which side of the looking glass you are standing on as to who have changed the most and with the more deleterious affects.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

            This comment hits the mark of what I had hoped to elicit. It's hard to predict where JFK would have ended up. JFK was very common sense and a true patriot as I remember him.  I think he as Reagan would have flipped to republican as he realized where liberalism was heading.
            
            "Ronald Reagan, America’s 40th president, who was a Democrat much of his life, famously said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
            
            You might be surprised what JFK thoughts on racial problems
            
            "QUESTION: Mr. President, some Negro leaders are saying that, like the Jews persecuted by the Nazis, the Negro is entitled to some kind of special dispensation for the pain of second-class citizenship over these many decades and generations. What is your view of that in general, and what is your view in particular on the specific point that they are recommending of job quotas by race? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't think-- I don't think that is the generally held view, at least as I understand it, of the Negro community, that there is some compensation due for the lost years, particularly in the field of education. What I think they would like is to see their children well educated so that they could hold jobs and have their children accepted and have themselves accepted as equal members of the community. So I don't think we can undo the past. In fact, the past is going to be with us for a good many years in uneducated men and women who lost their chance for a decent education. We have to do the best we can now. That is what we are trying to do. I don't think quotas are a good idea. I think it is a mistake to begin to assign quotas on the basis of religion or race or color, or nationality.I think we get into a good deal of trouble. Our whole view of ourselves is a sort of one society. That has not been true. At least that is where we are trying to go. I think that we ought not to begin the quota system. On the other hand, I do think that we ought to make an effort to give a fair chance to everyone who is qualified, not through a quota, but just look over our employment rolls, look over our areas where we are hiring people, and at least make sure we are giving everyone a fair chance, but not hard and fast quotas. We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color."   
            
            Source JFK Libray ---  NEWS CONFERENCE 60, AUGUST 20, 1963
            https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/oth … ference-60
            
            So have conservatives at this point adopted much of President Kennedy's ideologies in regards to race, and at this point would not Kennedy's very words be rejected by today's liberal? 
            
            Maybe someday there will be a happy medium.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, he was a great one, but he lived during a period where even he could not recognize the severity of the problem.
               
               People were not going to make the effort to give an equal and fair chance out of the kindness of their hearts, there had been the past record that was hard to disavow. We needed federal troops, Supreme Court rulings and political agitation from the "radical brothers" to get things hastened along.
               
               Why did you think Nixon, hardly a liberal, needed to start the Affirmative Action concept if Kennedy, years before, believed that the problem would be solved by people "doing the best that they can"?
               
               It is difficult for people to acquire education that had little or no resources the direct result of a society from whom we were now to expect good will.
               
               The point is that the Kennedy ideal simply was not happening in the real world.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  "Why did you think Nixon, hardly a liberal, needed to start the Affirmative Action concept..."
                  
                  There was never a "need" for legally enforced discrimination.  Only for enforcing the law.

                  replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You mean like the "progress" towards open borders, with American citizens supporting the world because it buys Democrat votes?
      
      Or the "progress" towards disarming the people, because it buys Democrat votes?
      
      Or the "progress" towards enslaving the people to depend on liberal charity because it buys Democrat votes?
      
      Or the "progress" towards forcing women to compete against males in school sports because it buys Democrat votes?
      
      Or the "progress" towards allowing riots to continue unabated in our cities because it buys Democrat votes?
      
      Or "progress" towards unlimited voting, whether by Americans or foreigners, dead or alive, age 2 or 22, one vote per person or 20, as long as the extra votes are mostly Democrat?
      
      Yeah, conservatives will always resist such "progress".  Give them actual progress towards a goal that benefits the country and they will flock to it.  Liberals, on the other hand, tend to champion any change they can label "progress" as long as it buys Democrat votes in elections.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         And what buys Republican votes?
         
         Government controlled and for sale by well heeled plutocrats.
         
         Voter suppression
         
         Clients who are plutocratic, oligarchic and terrified of the democratic process
         
         Sit by while the country remains a shooting gallery, resistant to ANY form of gun control.
         
         Republican definition of unlimited voting is allowing anyone to vote that do not vote Republican...
         
         People that actually believe and give credence to insane cults
         
         People that when presented with overwhelming evidence continue to play "heads, I win, tails you lose" from the 2020 election.
         
         "Progress" for conservatives is only those things that benefit them directly.
         
         And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
         
         So, touché.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "And what buys Republican votes?"
            
            Jobs, perhaps.  Or repaired bridges and roads.  Better schools (K-12).  Relaxation of undue restrictions on people or business.
            
            "Sit by while the country remains a shooting gallery, resistant to ANY form of gun control."
            
            Certainly not sit by while violence happens whether riots or shooting sprees happen - how about actually doing something about it that might produce fewer deaths or destruction?  Strange objective to a liberal, perhaps, but common to a conservative - either do something that will get results or do nothing.
            
            "Republican definition of unlimited voting is allowing anyone to vote that do not vote Republican"
            
            Right.  Any American citizen of an appropriate age, whether voting Republican or Democrat.  But ONLY Americans, alive and only once.
            
            ""Progress" for conservatives is only those things that benefit them directly."
            
            Correct, at least in that benefitting the country benefits Republicans as well as Democrats. 
            
            "People that when presented with overwhelming evidence continue to play "heads, I win, tails you lose" from the 2020 election."
            
            Probably, if you meant that "overwhelming evidence" means "no need to test or check as we already know there were no problems (while ignoring that there were documented problems, such as violating state laws when making procedural changes".
            
            So, yes - good points all.  Conservatives want what helps the country, and pays for it via votes.  Liberals want what helps a few at the cost of others, and thus buys the votes of those few that care more about themselves than the country.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Liberal votes are always bought while conservative votes are not! Right.....
               
               We, as usual, remain at an impasse.
               
               I respectfully, disagree.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I thought it was pretty plain: Republicans buy votes...by doing things that benefit the country as a whole rather than benefitting only those that are then expected to vote for a specific party.

                  replyreport