Why does Liberal=Bad and Conservative=Good?

Big O - I can answer your question in part. At the undergraduate level (a decade ago, sigh) I had a few classes on American history, and one book on our cursus was "The Americans" by historian Andre Kaspi. He said that a major paradigmal shift happened with Reagan's accession to the Presidency in 1980. Before that, the country's political life had existed under an old "Rooseveltian coalition" where the basic premises of consensus were good social programs and toughness on communism. The party that appeared to best reflect those values was able to win the White House - which is why you had "war Democrats" like Kennedy and Johnson, and "social Republicans" like Nixon and Ford.

In 1980, the premises of consensus changed with Reagan's declaration that government was part of the problem. For the first time, the previously untouchable Rooseveltian social programs were put in question. The first goal became fiscal responsibilty and reducing the size of government. A new "Reaganian coalition" arose, and Bill Clinton was - especially during his second term - the one who best represented that Reaganian legacy.

So I think that's in part where the rift appeared - liberals being the greatest partisans of social programs, they are, for the conservatives, "part of the problem".

I'll try to find that Andre Kaspi reference for you.

Now that's what I'm talking about.

I'll take a look for that book.

I knew a lot of this stuff really started around the time Nixon got the boot and Reagan took office. I was just to young at that time to remember much about the politics at the time.

Thanks Otts!

No problem, glad to be of help!

Also to be noted, the Republican party underwent a crisis of sorts in the early 90s. George H.W. Bush, in my opinion, was of the old Nixonian Republican stock: internationally, he functioned by alliances and coalitions, and he was a maestro at foreign relations. He was also a social moderate and certainly not a Reaganian.

Which is why Pat Buchanan challenged him for the nomination in '92 - it was the first clash between the Nixonians (more liberal in nature) and the Reaganians (more conservative in nature) for control of the party. The Reaganians won Congress in 1994 with Newt Gingrich, but couldn't prevent the 1996 nomination going to Bob Dole, a Nixonian. However, after 2000, the Reaganians in the party took complete control of the party.

I think a moderate wing still exists in the Republican party, but the "Nixonian" brand of Republicans is dead. The moderates of that party will have to find their niche, define themselves and find a champion - it might be Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani or Colin Powell.

The only way to win is to abandon the ship til they get themselves calmed down a bit and stop taking us for granted.

But much like the Democrates, they hold a great power in Washington because they would be required to show "Party Loyalty" in order to get approved.

This is the reason you saw Hillary Clinton doing commontary after the third "Presidental Debate", which was a studio production much like the WWF.

This is why I always get mad when people begin to believe and spread that Slogon and Slander around here when it is obviously not for thinking people.

Great comparison to wrestling! However, for the nitpicky record, it's the WWE now.

The World Wildlife Fund won in a court battle forcing World Wrestling Federation to change their name to World Wrestling Entertainment.

I'm sorry, this has no place in this forum.

Oh yeah, KrazyJethro, Libertarians have always intrigued me.

They share half of my beliefs completely, but are totally different on the other half.

It's like I want to disagree with them, but they make a lot of sense half the time, so I can't really.