kr@cker wrote:
the Republican (and Libertarian) party is the more conservative of the system, however alot of people mistakenly see conservatism as "opposing change", whereas it is more accurate to say that it is "to approach change cautiously", with careful consideration of the longterm effects of the policy
The Democratic (and Green) party is more liberal, in that they wish to initiate change radically or on a more reactionary plane, whatever it takes to make something happen right away
it is the duties of all parties in a government to govern change, if change was not needed then we would only need the courts and the military for defense
I'm going to call you on this one. Your definitions are for the most part correct, but I'll define them properly again just as I did in the last thread about this:
Conservative1. Favoring traditional views and values, tending to oppose change.
2. Moderate and cautious.
3. Bourgeois; opposed to liberal reforms; Political extreme = Reactionary.
Reactionaries are people that want to move culture backwards, or want to drag progress to a grinding halt since they really want to keep their lifestyles the same as "was before."
Liberal1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring reform, open to ideas for progress, broad-minded.
3. One who favors progress and political reform and protection of civil liberties
4. Favors laissez-faire and self-regulating economic markets.
Radicals are the political extremes of Social and Economic Liberalism. The want to promote extremely fast change which, in general, can have adverse effects both socially and economically.
The point I'm calling you on is your perception of the cause and consequence of both methods. Liberal/progressive reform, while mainly actively changing things now, is actually aimed at goals in the future. The consequences for Liberal actions are taken into careful consideration before they are enacted.
Conservative/reactionary reform is decidedly blunt, aimed to withdraw elements of progress/change in the system in order to maintain the status-quo for the time being, without looking at the consequences of the actions in the long run. Tax breaks, for instance, ease the social pressure of the government during a president's time in office (and people tend to not like to pay taxes) so it's regarded as a good thing...But, a tax break means less income/revenue for the government in the long run, and tends to run us deeper into a national defecit.