Liberal/Conservative

[Anonymous]

A thought suggested by the Krauthammer discussion:

The labels liberal and conservative, symbolized by the blue state/red state dichotomy, make me imagine someone going through an art museum with a paintbrush and two cans of paint, classifying each painting as blue or red, and making a big X across it with the assigned color. I think labeling a politician or a political opinion as liberal or conservative adds about as much to understanding as those X's would to artistic aesthetics.

Any comments?

RH

[jsteele]

Well, we all know that Takoma Park (even DC) is red, but not in the Republican sense

Obviously, there are variations along the spectrum of liberal and conservative. Its especially confusing when you consider that most Republicans espouse what has classically been called "liberal" economic policies (ie. free trade) where as Democrats are more likely to support classically conservative economic policies such as protectionism. The classical terms have been essentially turned on their heads since the time of Reagan.

Within both parties are people who don't easily fit in to simple conservative or liberal categories. For instance, those Republicans that lean libertarian are frequently socially liberal when it comes to something like gay marriage or smoking pot, but conservative on issues such as affirmative action and taxes. Similarly, many socially conservative Republicans from the religious wing of the party are actually pretty liberal on social justice issues.

Though, in support of your point, politics in the US has become treated more and more like a spectator sport. On Sunday you don't have one team consisting of a few Cowboys and a few Redskins (except the all-star game, which often lacks Redskins anyway), you have one team of Redskins and one team of Cowboys and that's how we treat our politics. No nuances.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:... and that's how we treat our politics. No nuances.

Exactly! The fact that the majority of voters react that way is to be expected. But the fact that the politicians themselves succumb and that most of the press encourage it is what really disappoints me.

Why, for example, can't McC & O admit that they are pretty much in agreement in principle on campaign reform rather than beating each other up about the fact that they have to make real-world compromises. And on issues where they differ -- the war or the Supreme Court, for example -- why not lay out the differences in a way that respects both your opponent and the millions of voters who agree with him, rather than demonizing him and his position? I really had hopes that these two could move toward a new kind of campaign.

Ah, well, now that you've outed me as a Takoman, I guess I'm just spreading that head-in-the-clouds peace and love image.

Rich