|
|
Post by jarcenas on Mar 22, 2009 16:50:30 GMT -5
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
This quote has been misattributed to Winston Churchill.
According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot when he observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. This quote has been attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, and others.
~ Wikiquote
__________________________________________________
This quote has been used quite often by conservatives when observing young voters.Though I think the quote may have some credibility to it, it is rather inaccurate when applied at certain times. For example, Generation Jones in its youth (people born from 1954-1965) was known for its support of Ronald Reagan in his elections. I'll add more to my opinion later.
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarcenas on Mar 22, 2009 17:02:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 22, 2009 17:22:24 GMT -5
I think that intelligent, compassionate people become liberals. I also think that intelligent, compassionate people become conservatives. But when intelligence and compassion are joined, you end up with fairly moderate people whether they lean right or left, and these are the people who are willing to compromise and work for the betterment of the group or the nation instead of getting frozen into partisan mode.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 22, 2009 18:08:53 GMT -5
Moderate people... are the people who are willing to compromise and work for the betterment of the group or the nation instead of getting frozen into partisan mode. The cult of the moderate strikes again. There is not some goldilocks 'just right' position on all issues, that lies somewhere to the left of Mike Huckabee, but to the right of Joe Lieberman. You can't get the 'correct' position by adding the two party's positions together and dividing by 2. This is a radical position, BTW. Nearly all of your media and much of your congress explicitly reject the view that I have just stated. For instance: public health care. Studies have repeatedly shown that the Australian/European system of health insurance is the best. In that system you get government provided free health insurance, unless you purchase private health coverage. It's cheaper and gives better result to everyone. However, if health insurance reform in the US is ever enacted, this system will not even be considered. Why? Because this proposal is the most left wing. The moderates are the ones who are really too partisan to consider other views. |
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Mar 22, 2009 20:37:00 GMT -5
On the left/right dichotomy:
To me, the whole left/right thing is irrelevant. Yes, you heard me. It is a fucking waste of time to be worried what end of the spectrum it falls on, when you should be judging a given idea by its fruit, and by its long-term viability, to say nothing of its impact on the public. I used to know what the point of the whole thing was, but now?
I just think it is bullshit AND a big waste of time better spent undoing the damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 22, 2009 22:33:43 GMT -5
Moderate people... are the people who are willing to compromise and work for the betterment of the group or the nation instead of getting frozen into partisan mode. The cult of the moderate strikes again. There is not some goldilocks 'just right' position on all issues, that lies somewhere to the left of Mike Huckabee, but to the right of Joe Lieberman. You can't get the 'correct' position by adding the two party's positions together and dividing by 2. This is a radical position, BTW. Nearly all of your media and much of your congress explicitly reject the view that I have just stated. For instance: public health care. Studies have repeatedly shown that the Australian/European system of health insurance is the best. In that system you get government provided free health insurance, unless you purchase private health coverage. It's cheaper and gives better result to everyone. However, if health insurance reform in the US is ever enacted, this system will not even be considered. Why? Because this proposal is the most left wing. The moderates are the ones who are really too partisan to consider other views. Moderates do not create the best governments. I did not say that they do. They do tend to create stable governments, however, because they look for broad support. And that is important in a two-party democracy because otherwise absolutely nothing happens; extremists may sometimes have the best positions, but they will usually either not get them or have to override democratic principles to get them. I would love to see European-style health care in the US. I would love to see a robust welfare system. I would love to see absolutely no restrictions on personal conduct except where they violate the principle of harm. I will never see any of these things. I may, however, see moves in those directions, and long after I'm gone even further moves may thereby be made possible. And as for your last sentence... give me a break. The far-right would never accept anything short of purely privatized health care; the far-left would never accept anything short of purely socialized medicine. If people cannot compromise, democracy, at least in America, all but freezes. If we ever see serious, lasting health care reform, it'll be moderates on both sides of the aisle who bring it together. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 23, 2009 13:10:25 GMT -5
I sort of get it, after all, ideas that are conservative today were all liberal at one point. Easy example, in the 90s it was liberals pushing for the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy so that homosexuals (and bisexuals) can serve in the armed forces, conservatives opposed it. Now, liberals was to do away with it and let openly gay people in the armed forces, while conservatives cling to DADT.
|
|
|
|
Post by booley on Mar 23, 2009 13:11:08 GMT -5
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." This quote has been misattributed to Winston Churchill. According to research by Mark T. Shirey, citing Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations by Ralph Keyes, 1992, this quote was first uttered by mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot when he observed, Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. This quote has been attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck, and others.~ Wikiquote __________________________________________________ This quote has been used quite often by conservatives when observing young voters.Though I think the quote may have some credibility to it, it is rather inaccurate when applied at certain times. For example, Generation Jones in its youth (people born from 1954-1965) was known for its support of Ronald Reagan in his elections. I'll add more to my opinion later. Discuss. Besides that as you get older you are LESS likely to listen effectively and see past your own preconceptions, I would also point out that so far the track record for conservatives and facts isn't so great. |
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Mar 23, 2009 18:28:47 GMT -5
When I was a young man -- college age and beyond -- I was, as the guy says, slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. When I matured I became a liberal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on Mar 23, 2009 18:33:16 GMT -5
I just turned 35 this month and just stopped calling myself a libertarian, which I'd described myself as since I was 17, a year ago. I'm still a social libertarian, but on economic and foreign policy, I'm getting leftier with age. I've seen people slip through the cracks and corporations prove they can't be trusted.
I've also seen lots of conservatives twist facts beyond recognition to flatter themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 23, 2009 18:43:41 GMT -5
And as for your last sentence... give me a break. The far-right would never accept anything short of purely privatized health care; the far-left would never accept anything short of purely socialized medicine. If people cannot compromise, democracy, at least in America, all but freezes. If we ever see serious, lasting health care reform, it'll be moderates on both sides of the aisle who bring it together. If moderates on both sides of the isle come together to make a proposal, it will look like this. "Since social security is broke, we should get rid of it, medicaid and medicare, build another aircraft carrier and then give the proceeds directly to the insurance companies". And the American people will be rightly angry. Obama doesn't need to compromise like he did on the simulus package. Obama can force his bill through the House and the Senate (damn the fillibuster, the Republicans can make themselves even more upopular if they like) and then sign it without any Republican votes. Even better, not only is it the best proposal, it's also by far the most popular proposal. It's a fantastic thing about American democracy. The 'moderate' view in congress is actually a far-right fringe belief in the suburbs. Even worse, no progress can be made without taking strong positions and then carrying them out if the American people want you too. Imagine a compromised new deal, or voting rights bill, or emancipation proclamation. Imagine a compromised Declaration of Independence. NOTHING GETS DONE if you listen to both sides and split the difference. Democracy itself relies on one side making an argument, the other side making an argument, the people voting and then whichever party wins enacting those policies. www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/02/10/tomo/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 23, 2009 18:44:27 GMT -5
I just turned 35 this month and just stopped calling myself a libertarian, which I'd described myself as since I was 17, a year ago. I'm still a social libertarian, but on economic and foreign policy, I'm getting leftier with age. I've seen people slip through the cracks and corporations prove they can't be trusted. I'm a libertarian too- a libertarian socialist. Come join us. |
|
|
|
Post by Green-Eyed Lilo on Mar 23, 2009 18:50:11 GMT -5
@ ltfred: Link, please. Don't know if I'd join, but I'd like to see how that combination works out.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainhooker on Mar 23, 2009 18:56:39 GMT -5
As someone who vacillates between the two, I have to say that there are times when being either is absolutely essential - when each serves its purpose well - and there are times when it comes down to personal preference
It's knowing the difference between preference and practicality that makes one wise in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 23, 2009 19:05:22 GMT -5
@ ltfred: Link, please. Don't know if I'd join, but I'd like to see how that combination works out. We haven't got a website. I can explain the combination though, if you like. |
|
