Is the Liberal vs. Conservative debate a battle between two fundamentally different groups, or is this an example of "divide and conquer"? 


Also...


What would be a better way to organize our political ideologies and facilitate a constructive discourse? Go!

Views: 76

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree. Look up Michael arth on youtube.
We've been cursed with a two party system since Washington retired. I'm not worldly enough to know if this is the natural tendency of politics in general or just American politics. In some cases or in some sense, it just may be a divide and conquer strategy, but I think that the idealogical gulf is real among the constituents and wondering which politician is sincere or just playing the game is practically hopeless.
divide and conquer
No, they are two fundamentally different groups. I'm not sure how one can talk to liberals or conservatives and think otherwise.

What usually happens is middle class white heterosexual people of generally Christian upbringing like to say that both political parties are the same, because politicians in those will always cater to and support them. That's different than them actually being the same when you're not a middle class white heterosexual of generally Christian upbringing.
Leftists are afraid that some deserving individual, won't get a fair share, and Rightists are afraid that some undeserving individual will!
Just remember, there are two types of people in this world: those who divide people into two types, and those who don't.
Revolutions are pro-forma reactive--not proactive. They merely replace one element with another of equal value. Changes do occur sometimes when injustices are perceived by the masses as being unbearable, as in the French Revolution, but I do not see anywhere, especially in America, a ground swell of discontent likely to arise to revolutionary proportions in any significant way in the near future.

You must remember the times were ripe for change just before the French Revolution: the bourgeoisie was rising in wealth and was demanding more power and influence. Today there is no such equivalency. If anything the middle classes are losing their hold on government. The have nations of today no longer openly hold a feudal system as did the French at that time. However, today’s have nations subtly outsource jobs to their feudal slaves in third world countries where it is ‘out of sight out of mind’ and not very likely to cause a revolt. Also, the French government was on the brink of bankruptcy as are many modern nations, but, again, today’s interdependence of nations; nuclear weapons and a print-as-you-go international banking system can stem financial collapse indefinitely. Lastly starvation due to massive crop failures made revolt, in and of itself mandatory in France [do we really care today that hundreds of millions in 3rd world countries will starve to death? Not really worth a revolution, is it?

One can’t compare the complacency prevalent today with the heated climate during the French Revolution. Would that we of the 21st cent. were notso complacent, but I don’t see revolt in our future. Not as long as there is ‘bread and circus’.
Doug, I'm stealing this quote from you.
Well, I think Garrison Keilor is responsible for the first one.
Fist, I would refer the reader to the late Howard Zinn's book 'A People's History of the United States' for starters. History has shown, I think, that governments [all governments] divide the masses with false dichotomies, to a large extent: illegals vs citizens; blacks vs whites; communists vs capitalists; Muslims vs Christians; and so on [and the masses seem to be willing dupes]. But the real villains are a coterie of rich vs the masses. In every government through out time such a coterie of wealthy elites have garnered their wealth and power by disenfranchising the masses.

There have been many ideas put forth by well meaning persons as to how this state of affairs could be remedied. But, in truth, I don't think it is possible to reduce the strangle hold the rich have on the masses simply because the masses are, by and large, ignorant of the true state of affairs, i.e., how they are being manipulated. And being divided among themselves, having no cohesive base from which to operate, they are powerless to act as a single unit. Exactly the state of affairs the powerful elite love.
Remember the French revolution.
I feel that the 'left' and 'right' are two different groups. Especially on the extremes. In my opinion, the two party system we have is not sufficient to the needs of the voters. Even a three party system would be a major step forward. Left, right and middle. The sad part is that there ARE more than the two parties. However, the media tends to act as if only Dem. and 'Pub. exist...
What are your thoughts on the tea party?

RSS

Forum

The Elephant in the Room...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Kairan Nierde 40 minutes ago. 12 Replies

East German Shame

Started by Davis Goodman in Law, Trials, and Decisions. Last reply by Davis Goodman 54 minutes ago. 14 Replies

Why do we tolerate this?

Started by Belle Rose in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Tom Sarbeck 1 hour ago. 26 Replies

Ear-piercing a baby

Started by Simon Mathews in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by Unseen 1 hour ago. 27 Replies

Blog Posts

How did that happen?

Posted by Belle Rose on December 19, 2014 at 4:36am 6 Comments

Pabst Blue Ribbon to the rescue!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 9:33pm 0 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service