In my musings over the clash of liberals and conservatives here on Gather it has occurred to me that the positions of conservatives seem to have changed whereas, in general, the positions of liberals has been more nearly constant. Not being an expert in such things and preferring that people speak for themselves it seems to me that it might be fun to have the conservative and liberal positions at several points in history be set forth to see which of our gather conservatives, liberals, and “independents” would consider themselves to still be of that same type in previous days.
1935: the Great Depression.
Everyone was suffering but the solutions seen by liberals and conservatives were quite different.
Liberals favored creating jobs by government spending.
Liberals favor the creation of Social Security.
Liberals favor destroying food to raise the price of farm products.
Liberals favor unions being allowed to strike.
Liberals favor a number of socialist programs. (Yes there were actual socialists in the Roosevelt Administration.)
Conservatives favored a cut in government spending to avoid government debt. Some favored a return to the gold standard.
Conservatives opposed Social Security on the grounds that it was not the government’s job to take care of those who were not provident. (Those who didn’t save for their old age.)
Conservatives opposed government actions to raise farm prices preferring to allow the free market to operate.
Conservatives opposed the labor unions and contended that a strike was an illegal action by labor.
Conservatives felt that the Administration was socialist and would destroy the nation.
Would you have been liberal or conservative in 1935?
Next, 1965, the Great Society?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
The most intelligent method of judgment is one free from the preconceived restraints of "group think"... party tenets and mob mentality....the "sheeple syndrome". We each have a mind separate from all others. We are supposed to posses our own ability to think independently from "our group" and from each other.
If one thinks a particular way because he is a liberal or because he is a conservative...he isn't really thinking ...is he? He is having others think for him.
I am an atheist, but I will defend the rights of those who wish to worship. I will defend the right of free speech of the neo Nazis....but I hate everything they stand for.
Do you see what I mean Wyoming?
You have engaged in a couple of fallacies of logic... one is called Non Causa Pro Causa... faulty causation.
Marilyn..."Looks like this is where our government really messed up giving people hand-outs instead of hands up...and what caused today's mess."
You haven't defined today's mess (which mess???...I'm assuming you are talking about the economy) and you haven't shown that the conditions today are a result of hand outs to the poor (you haven't supported your claim)
Larry...."But wasn't it the handouts to the rich that created this current mess? That's what the "experts" have been telling me.
But that is not the entire cause of the 'current mess' and no expert would stand by that statement. Our problems are much more complicated than government handouts to anyone. (nor would an expert stand by Marilyn's claim as a sole cause)
The other fallacy, and this is the one to which I most object... is that for one of you to be right, the other must be wrong. Could it be that you are both right? (or both wrong)
In either case...the merit of one of the claims doesn't make the other true nor does it make it false.
One conclusion is...and it is the one that I believe...is that you are both right...to a degree...in that MANY...not all...government handouts have been grand mistakes...both creating a sense of entitlement for SOME of the poor who took the handouts as handouts rather than a boost up and as creating a method of dependency on government subsidies for SOME of the companies and corporations that thrived on that support.
There is evidence to support both our your accusations.
I like your position, too, as a more accurate and containing more truth statement.