What you are saying makes sense, I guess I was looking at it from the perspective of “mutually assured destruction” causing the superpowers to be more careful in decisions involving armed conflict. More careful descisions leading to fewer large scale armed conflicts.

Take Pakistan & India. They both pursued nukes under socialist eras but now that they have it, they are also now realizing that the true measure of sucess is free-market democracy/economy, not military power. The problem is how to get there from here without destablizing the politics.

Again, I think the primary factor is the USSR/Warsaw Pact disintegration and the resulting cessation of proxy wars of ideology borne by nations to poor to do so on their own. Take Cuba, as long as there was funding, Cuban troops were very active in trouble spots around the world, from nearby islands like Grenada and thruout the S. American continent to the heart of Africa like Angola, Mozambique & SA.

What Reagan did in ratcheting up the arms race is akin to accelerating mortage payments — it costs more in the short run but saves in the long. When you think of realpolitics, the objective is to maintain parity. If Reagan had listened to that, the USSR may well have been around another decade or so coupled with the ever present finger hovering over the launch button (eventually I think the Information Age would have done them in anyway). Anyway, spread Reagan’s budget over 10 years and it would have averaged out in line with preceding budgets.

Make sense?

You are right that essay is eerily directly on point!

And those violence trends certainly are dramatic, but having mulled this over for awhile and looked again at the dates…do you think another factor that has added to the dramatic decrease in violence could be the invention and proliferation of nuclear arms?

Those I distrust are the ones constantly straddling fences, meandering from one point on the compass to another, never seeming to want to take a stand. I’d rather deal with a strongwilled person of a totally different opinion than try to deal with someone who can’t stand firm on principle.

Since violence peaked in 1990, I’d say it’ll be at least a generation before we can definitively answer your question, however, the current trend is certainly dramatic, non?

Check it out.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

Extremely well written post…

I agree with a lot of what you are saying especially with welfare.

However, I think that someone’s intentions for carrying out a particular action are fair game because the intent will define the means they will use and the level of committment and sacrifice they will invest in achieving the end. By any means necessary shouldn’t be acceptable.

I’ll end with this…sometimes a person’s actions can speak so loudly that I can’t hear what their mouth is telling me their intentions are.

While I agree with your first point (particular subjects), I disagree with your second point. Conservatism and Liberalism is a moving target. Classical Liberalism is aligned with today’s conservatives and people like Keith Thompson and EverythingIknowiswrong blog write about this.

I’d say that I align almost 95% with today’s (moving target) definition of a conservatives (how we define ourselves). That doesn’t make me or anyone else that agrees with 95% of what conservatives mean an extremist.

Why?

Because there is a LARGE political scale. From -10 (Communism – the most government) to +10 (Anarchy – the least government). Conservatives range anywhere from -2 to +5 and I’d say that’s near the center as compared to liberals which range anywhere from -7 to -2. You may disagree and I respect that.

Your second paragraph reminded me of your post and it also opines how most people think. The funny thing is how the debate is framed. For instance, if the the new legislation sets aside money to pay for or educate people on a certain reproductive option, that would be more government (taking of my money to do something I disagree with). We can call that social freedom but I want government to truly stay out of some of these types of issues (as a conservative) and not take my money when the constitution prescribes what the federal government should spend money on and leaves all others to the states (I’m hoping this appeals to you as a stated constitutionalist).

Your last paragraph asks a question about a pattern that I’ve identified (as a former liberal myself in 1991) and have been trying to demonstrate and show and eradicate to no success.

I believe generally that conservatives tend to be more conservative when they start seeing the facts for what they are and results of policy for what they are as opposed to thinking with emotion and feelings.

For instance: Liberals are well-intentioned and want to help the poor. One way is to adversely affect the economy with another tax (removing money from the private sector) to pay for a new program (on top of the 100 that exist) to give money to the poor. That feels good. Yes ! We solved the problem. Now, conservatives like Thomas Sowell and others will come along and show years later how this has created a dependant class and has not solved the problem and it feeds a catch 22 cycle. The more someone tries to spend government money the more it has to take from the private sector which hurts the economy which puts more people out of work and creates more poor people. Conservatives look at these facts (yet are called mean-spirited by Democrats and liberals) and try to come up with different solutions that will result in helping people who are able-bodied help themselves. Yes. I’m generalizing.

Since 1991, I as a conservative have found a pervasive pattern with liberals. It is a pattern of believing the worst (feeling) about conservatives, accusing this and that person (whether Republican or conservative) of whatever they wish with no basis in fact and speaking untruths or bearing false witness against people. The pattern leads to liberals saying that Bush lied about WMD’s with no relevance in their mind that Clinton, Albright, French/German/British/Russian/American Intelligence long before Bush came into office said much more definatively about Iraq having WMD’s. The pattern leads to liberals saying that Bush has done this or that with this or that bad intention.

This pattern existed before Bush.

This pattern lead people to say in 1995 for 5 months straight that Republicans were cutting Medicare by 270 billion even though that was factually untrue. This was essentially before the Internet and for 5 months Republicans were interviewed by big media and couldn’t get Dan Rather and others (you can check that one) to understand that it wasn’t a cut but an increase of 7% per year for 7 years (more than 49% compounded).

Food for thought. Yes, conservatives level accusations too. But you’ll seem me more often than not defending people like Michelle Malkin, Maggie Gallagher, Armstrong Williams, Ward Connerly, or whoever the latest incorrect accusations are being leveled at at the time. There always is a basic element of truth and certain wrong doing. But it ends up being a huge bit of hypocrasy and blown out of proportion accusation if you look at the facts. I believe you can search La Shawn’s web site for Armstrong posts and my words about what happened.

I truely don’t believe there is such a thing as a “liberal” or a “conservative”. I think you have people who may think liberally or conservatively on particular subjects, but only idealogues and extremists think a certain way all the time. All of this labelling and generalization of everything into only two options is choking the life out of our Republic.

There was a post last week that I commented on where LaShawn was shocked that I am an ardent supporter of Tom Tancredo and his border reform ideas eventhough she thought I was a more of a moderate liberal because of other posts. I than said that I am a Constitutionalist and Republican (in the dictionary definition of the word, not the political party), but being a Constitutionalist by definition makes me more liberal on social issues because the Constitution says nothing about legislating social issues. I am also very Libertarian in my belief that people should be free to make their own choices in life, provided it does not infringe on others life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Don’t want to wear a seatbelt? Fine, you risk your life in a car accident, but its your life to risk. But you cannot steal, because that affects the pursuit of happiness of the person you stole from.

I guess I said all of that to ask a couple things: What is a “liberal tactic”, is name calling confined to any one group? What causes you classify Tiffany as a liberal? What would you classify me as, and why?

Baklava started it. He called me a liberal. LMAO!!!

I’ll agree to move on. I probably should just not respond to his posts. Simply read and move on.

Hypocrite because of how you talk to others and then you demand others talk to you without insults.

We can move on or dwell. I admit I didn’t talk to you that appropriately. Simply using the liberal tactic goes over your guy’s heads.

I can show you your mispellings all day dear.

Now one thing I’m not is a dogmatic idealogue.

And the spelling of the word is: REEKS.