Sorry dude. I consider myself to be conservative in many ways and liberal in many others. And the "conservatives" as we have today in the USA are not "conservative". They are "neo-conservative", which I would define as puritanical, religious zealots bent upon forcing their will upon their country and the world.
"Liberal News" is not liberal versus conservative. When you call something "Liberal" you mean non-narrow minded. What neo-cons want, and what Fox delivers, is a narrow-view on the world, using fear as their vehicle.
"Liberal News" is not liberal versus conservative. When you call something "Liberal" you mean non-narrow minded. What neo-cons want, and what Fox delivers, is a narrow-view on the world, using fear as their vehicle.
You're free to use the words that way if you wish, but that's not what they mean. The original description of the political spectrum was a line running from the left where the liberals are, to the right were the conservatives are (hence the terms left-wing, right-wing and variations). The most important issue that distinguished one from the other was the relationship between the individual and the King, or more practically, the King and all the land barons he appointed. The more liberal you were, the more independent you thought ordinary citizens should be from the rule of the King. By that definition we are all, for the most part liberals. In America, since there was no King, the government was substituted for the King, and our founding fathers wanted a fairly week Federal Government, so they would be classified as liberals too. "Narrow mindedness" had nor has anything to do with it.
Things got muddled in the 20th century, when people calling themselves liberals began focusing on big business as the substitute for the King when it came to individual freedoms. This substitution wasn't too significant at first as the Federal Government here in the US was still rather small. That has changed though and the problem that many liberals have is that we now have an almost all-powerful federal government as though the political spectrum has doubled back on itself. Some people resort to using the term "classical liberal" to indicate a desire for maximum personal freedoms.
I'd have no problem with calling myself a classical liberal. I think big unchecked government is bad, I think big unchecked business is bad, and they are both bad for exactly the same reasons. For many people, the balance of small federal government and many small businesses (as opposed to monopolies) was reached around the turn of the last century. Since we would like to see things "go back" in that direction the term conservative is "good enough" for everyday use.
Unfortunately the terms have been worn out to the extent where you really have to describe your positions on things rather than using a handy label.
I left religion out of the discussion for the following reason. If you favor small government and oppose large monopoly business there is no way to force particular religious beliefs on the individual. You can invent your own spectrum of freedoms for religion, sexuality, drug use, or whatever if you want, and in fact, the relative weakness these days of the Democrat party can be explained by the fact that it is an amalgam of single issue voting blocks each of whom care only about freedoms in a particular area and are indifferent to, or in some cases feel just the opposite regarding another area.
I like to simplify and have freedoms across the board rather than run around with a checklist of what freedoms I am supposed to support this week. I think many people who call themselves conservatives feel the same way. Some who call themselves liberals feel that way too. Like I said, the terms aren't very useful any more.
For some interesting ideas on the growth of the federal government I recommend the following:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net
