Why does Liberal=Bad and Conservative=Good?

This is something that has disturbed me for several years.

How come when Bush or any other conservative says, "Kerry was voted by (insert magazine name here) the most liberal senator in the 2003" that is considered a "bad" thing?

If someone says, "The Bush administration is the most conservative administration in over a generation," does that have a negative connotation?

I don't understanding how being liberal is associated as being bad but being a conservative is not?

Perhaps someone can explain how this is and how this came to be?

(Disclosure: I am a registered democrat/"fancy pants liberal elitist")

I think generally some people are not happy no matter what is going on. The reason there are more two term presidents than one term flukes is because people are happy to remain in the same situation than face the possibility of "change." Many people cannot handle the concept of "change over time" and are pleased with their current situation (even if they seem to complain about it all the time). Right now Conservatism is at an all time high, and Liberalism is looked at as "bad" because it means change...nothing more nothing less. It's a little bit like the seasons...

When its hot during summer we want the cold, and retreat to the cool air conditioning.

When its cold during winter we want to be hot, and again retreat into our houses for warmth.

The point is...people are never satisfied, but would not trade their current situation, unless something drastic called for it.

The Conservatives who rely on such comparisons, are just playing on people's fears. "The gay brown people are going to take your money and women!"

I guess conservatives playing on the idea that being too liberal is bad are similar to liberals playing to the idea that all conservatives are racist homophobes.

To answer the question: Since the Bush Administration has been hardly conservative, the idea that they are "too" conservative couldn't come into play. People tend to like a moderate, the Bush campaign is trying to paint Kerry as being far left to entice the middle of the road independant types to vote for Bush.

To many Americans being very liberal is comparative to being socialist (I know some of you wil disagree with that). Socialism just isn't considered to be an American ideal. They're playing to that fact too.

Saying that liberals never attack conservatives is about as ignorant a statement as you could wish to make.

Go hang out in the mud pit for ten minutes, come back here, and tell me that again.

O, what do you think the answer to that question is? Seems like a pretty simple, obvious one, only curme has the mental capacity to miss the answer.
By the way, curme, do you ever get tired of saying stupid things? Your last comment was no better than usual. Do you work on being an offensive twit, or does it simply come natural to you? Furthermore, to clarify fear-mongering, it would be the democratic party, highjacked by the liberals, that base their campaigns on fear. It's been that way since, well, heck, as long as I can remember.

Anyway, O, look at it this way. By being the most liberal senator, Kerry has proven himself to be at odds with both the moral foundation of this country and the constitutional foundation. That is a bad thing. You see, people like that do not see the constitution as a good but rather a hindrance to what they want to accomplish.

The opposite of this liberal blight is not "conservatism", but right-wingism, or fascism. I do not know of any such person on the federal scene, but they, too, would be bad.

And, by the way, O, when you analyse both extremes, you'll find that the two have more similarities than differences because both rules over the people rather than the people governing themselves. Ever notice how Hitler confiscated the weapons from the Jews? Notice, too, how Poland had gun control under Soviet rule.

Thomas Crowne...while I very rarely agree with you I must say you are spot on in your assertions in this thread. That is not to say that either one of us are "right", but I think more people are beginning to see that both parties have been hijacked by the extremes of those sides. Where oh where have the moderates gone?

I seriously doubt you agree with me on this, Jazz, my assumption is that you don't understand what I just said.

For example, your signature advocating "separation of church and state" is extreme and is a perversion of historical fact. Now, where would a moderate be in that? Would a moderate be someone who says that, "Well, you can be a Christian and serve, but you'd better not be caught making decisions based on your Christian ethics or anything like that!". A moderate is one who cavers to both sides. As far as I'm concerned, you are either in accordance with the founding documentation of this country, or you are wrong.

Would you like to revise your aligning yourself with me, now?

I see no reason to detract my statements about you. As far as my signature being, quote, "signature advocating "separation of church and state" is extreme and is a perversion of historical fact", which I have explained before, and I am quoting another post by myself here..."Its really more of an implied notion about my views on some issues, and while not directly in the Constitution there are "hints" if you will:

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

or as in Article VI: but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States...

I agree completely that it is not in the Constitution, and that even if the original intent was to "imply" it, as I said before, it still stands as more of a personal belief than an indoctrined one. The statement "seperation of church and state" should be thought of as an ideological standpoint on which I personally believe the Government should act. Although I would never condemn people in power being religious...religion should be left out of government...especially in this "melting pot" or "salad bowl" the we call America."


I do believe that a seperation of church and state is crucial for this country, but I do understand that religion (all religion) is the foundation for most moral grounds in this country. In accordance, I believe that making decisions based upon one's faith is not out of line, but at the same time they must look at the overall picture of the state and make informed decisions based upon objective reasoning. I have no problem with faith, no matter what it may be, but one should not look at faith v. govt. subjectively...that is where a line must be drawn.

Now, if you do not draw parallels between seperation of church and state and historical fact, then that is your problem, not mine. I would even omit the fact that many of the founding fathers were Deist, and still be quite right. So, no, I don't see the need to "revise your aligning yourself with me", as you say. Unless you are just trying to pick a fight

[edit on 23-10-2004 by Jazzerman]

Bush and his administration are not Republicans. Patriot Act, increased spending, government expansion, pre-emptive war, trumping state law. I mean it's amazing that bush and his administration get this kind of support. Kerry pretty much is only inline with trumping state law. Democrats have a lot of other questionable policies as well. So pretty much either way, people get screwed by these two parties.

So, in this respect I think Bush is an extreme. Kerry, I really don't know what he is going to do.

But implying that Bush does not see the constitution as a hindrance to his aims is completely absurd. Patriot Act, Gay Marriage, Abortion. He wants these federal laws to trump the state laws.

Liberal is bad because they do what they preach. Conservative is good because they don't do what they preach . But, conservative these days has taken on a new meaning, and it seems many are ready to go along with it. Anyone notice how we keep moving more and more to the left everyday.

Bush is a liberal, get over it, a Christian liberal perhaps, but a liberal none-the-less. Kerry is the "#1 Liberal" so what does that tell you? Each party has the same damn plans.

To clarify myself better...It was one of the founders that first coined the term "Seperation of Church and State" when Thomas Jefferson said:

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The wall of seperation denotes his purpose to protect the church from the government, and the government from the Church. Meaning that political powers cannot influence the free teaching of religion, and religion should not limit the powers of government. America, including Jefferson, did not want a state established church like England had at the time, and took it upon himself to convey this message in order to prevent just that. America did not need something like the Conventicle Act of 1665 in which no other churches were allowed to be established, and mandatory attendance was required. They knew, as it has been said "Those who do not learn from history, are bound to repeat it."

Believing in a seperation of church and state does not make this anywhere near an atheistic country as well. In fact, Civil liberties that are able to be protected under the Constitution comes with the acceptance and un-biased approach that politics is able to offer under such a seperation. No law should be made to establish a "faith" that the government should run on, but politicians and lawmakers are able to worship anyway they see fit...why? Because of the implied notion of a seperation of church and state.

I am so sorry for this....well no I am not really.

In answer to your question,

Because we are right and they are wrong. Simple.


as for :

If someone says, "The Bush administration is the most conservative administration in over a generation," does that have a negative connotation?

No it wouldnt but that will not happen, Bush isnt close.






This comment is so far off the mark. he is not a fiscal conservative, thats granted. But in no way would a liberal have attacked the enemy in the way GW has done, he tried the UN and the French stabbed him, so then he went and did it with what allies he could to enforce the UN resolution that the UN wouldnt enforce. He paid a big political proce for this as can be seen in here, but he did the right thing and to hell woth the polls. That is not a thing a liberal could fathom.






[edit on 23-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 23-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 23-10-2004 by edsinger]

I know you said this because it would creat fervor here on the ATS. I guess I will be one to take the bait.

This is what everyone on ATS has been waiting for you to say edsinger...thank you for finally getting it out...I know how much you have wanted to say, "Because we are right and they are wrong." The injustice that you have caused to the sites term "Deny Ignorance" will never be repaired...so I want to thank you personally for proving what myself and others have thought of you for so long.

BANG...Another tragic case of Ignorace NOT being Denied!

Sometimes it feels so good to be sooooooooooooo right

What are talking about liberals don't go to war? Of course they do. And how do preemptive strikes make Bush a conservative? I fail to see the comparison. Then in another thread, you'll start bashing the UN and say how liberals love the UN etc. etc. So, if Iraq was about enforcing the UN agenda, then why wouldn't liberals do it? And then, why would Bush feel the urge to defend the UN in Iraq. Once again, you prove that they are the same piece of the pie.

Damn you edsinger, you successfully turned this into another black&white thread, used for your own personal agenda.

[edit on 23-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

Well, actually, many, or most were not Diests, Jazz, but were Christians of one sect or another.

The 1st Amendment was not separating church and state, but separating state from church. In state, I mean to say it was insuring that no particular sect would be picked as the national official religion. Could you imagine the fighting between the dunkers and the sprinklers? It'd have been the very first Civil War, even before the ink dried. Article VI also refers to that same notion.

Recall, Jefferson wrote that letter from which you quoted a portion of to a friend in the Dannbury Baptist church who was concerned that another sect was growing in power and would be the official sect. Jefferson is also the one who stated, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?" (and not from other men or a man-made entity such as government).

While the federal government was not to pass any law respecting religion, the several states were more than welcome to do so. As a matter of fact, many states formed out of groups wanting to start their own governing body that adopted their own peculiar religious viewpoint.

I agree that the peculiars of the individual denominations of Christianity should be kept separate, the general precepts of Christianity is what is important to the nation. Even the idea of the several states governing as they once did is impractical since we don't have more room to spread, but the insane goals of stomping out all mention of God everywhere and to curse Christianity at every turn is not what the 1st Amendment is about, and that is what we see today.

The question is, should we be surprised this is occuring? After all, if we believe in Christ, then we should be what He says, and He said this would happen, right? Regardless, As Ben Franklin said, the only way this experiment in society will succeed is with Judeo-Christian ethics, morals and values. Ben also said Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. You'd better lsten to ol' Ben. As soon as you buy into that notion that God has nothing to do with the nation, then "they" will say, "Great, we agree with you," (As if it was tyour idea to begin with!) "and as that is the case, we are recinding the rights and liberties we gave you for a while as we feel we can run your lives better than you can."

Crap, gotta go get ready, Jazz. For some reason my ex-wife wants to meet me at a restaraunt in Dothan. I'd better keep my hand on my wallet at all times!!

Bait? Fervor? Well well is it that you leftist's just cant stand it that not everyone buys your utopian bull#? I am not alone in this, when Bush is elected you will see that despite the attacks and crap from both sides, the American electorate is still smarter than to believe that missing a damn physical in the ANG is more important that covering up what type of discharge one had...






Look I am right. If I am wrong I will admitt it, as I have already done three times here. The Left is wrong. You can not fight terror with spitballs and sternly worded memos. Screw the French, if the US is in danger I would expect no less from a POS like sKerry or Gorry! It is the job of POTUS. If the peacenick leftists had their way saddam would still be in power, sanctions pretty much # by now, the Russians selling saddam everything that bribed oil money could by, and iraqis would still be dying and I would argue in larger numbers than now. So get over yourself and the Utopia that will never happen, sometimes it is right to spank a child.





Thanks but I prefer to think of it as IGNORANCE EXPOSED!




You are so right it does feel good and I think I will have a beer.to celebrate.

Cheers Lefties!

Again, I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. Lets face it, on many occasions the founding fathers have contradicted themselves. Here is another couple of quotes from Jefferson that effectively contradicts what you quote from him stated:

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God."- TJ

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."- TJ

Or Ben Franklin:

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity..."- BF

"It was a Western European civilization that had broken free from the last traces of Empire and Christendom; and it had not a vestige of monarchy left, and no State Religion... The absence of any binding religious tie is especially noteworthy. It had a number of forms of Christianity, its spirit was indubitably Christian; but, as a State document of 1796 expicity declared: 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."- BF

So, even Franklin himself declared "as a State document of 1796 expicity declared: 'The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" which I think is prudent to this conversation. Many of the Founders including the likes of Madison, Paine, Adams, etc. were Deist, and expressed their beliefs accordingly so.

In fact, maybe I should just let the Founders do the talking:

Paine- "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

Madison- "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

The Left is wrong- I agree.

Ahem,

Being that I started this thread, perhaps I can steer the conversation more in the direction I was looking for.

When I asked "Perhaps someone can explain how this is and how this came to be?" I was more looking for a timeline.

If anyone has read David Brock's "Blinded By The Right" they might have an idea about what I'm talking about.

For instance, does anyone know of speeches, statements, papers, publications, that stated or attempted to convince that being a liberal was a negative thing?

There has to be a historical timeline for this. No one can just spin liberal into being a bad thing in four to six years. For example, I first remember hearing about this sort of thing when I was just starting college in the late nineties. I highly doubt that is the first instance of it however.

Are there any books that track this trend? Perhaps some that goes on to attempt to explain it?

I mean, I've read a plethora of books about how conservatives have managed to get such a strong voice in media. It's really something to be proud of. They put together a plan, loosely but a plan nonetheless, and had enough patience to get it into place and make it happen. Look where they are today, they totally dominate the AM waves and have the top rated cable news channel. I mean, that's a freaking accomplishment. Not that I like it but you've got to give it to them.

As for the "We're right, you're wrong" thing, I think it's a poor argument. You can do better; I've read instances where you have been better. I'm looking for stuff with a bit more substance.

So, anyone know of any publications that attempt to explain the liberal=bad trend? I haven't been able to find too much that was worth anything.

In answer to the question....."Why does Liberal=Bad and Conservative=Good?" It doesn't. When you get right down to the nitty gritty of it all, neither is good and neither is bad....very few things are black and white, there is always the gray area....just as there are very few "pure" conservatives or "pure" liberals...no one is actually right or wrong in politics...it's a matter of belief and perspective.