cross ideological policies
 

Are there any conservatives here who would be willing to accept a liberal policy if it promotes a conservative goal?

Are there any liberals here who would be willing to accept a conservative policy if it promotes a liberal policy?

YUP!, they are called "Moderates"

No they are not called moderates.

I am a conservative in that I want lower taxes and balanced budgets. I am a conservative in that I want to end any and all abortions not required to save the life of the mother in extreme medical emergencies. I am a conservative in that I want a strong national defense. I am a conservative in that I am opposed to affirmative action and sodomite marriage.

But, I would accept policies that could be used to combat global warming (something for which there is no scientific evidence) because these same policies could be used to conserve economic/natural resources for future generations while also promoting national security by reducing our dependence on imported oil.

It's a position I find myself in most of the time.

My values are, essentially, conservative. I want a strong society, composed of competent and responsible people who place the needs of their families and their nation above their own self-interest. I want accountability and integrity in our public servants, in our business leaders, and in the pillars of our community. I want people to respect the rule of law, the law itself, and the people who enforce it.

Most of all, I want America to be the best and brightest nation on the face of this Earth.

And, all too frequently, my desire for these things places me firmly on the same side of political issues as people who chain themselves to trees and demand that government health insurance pay for their marijuana.

I'm just not willing to support the wrong policies for the right reasons.

Do you think the state can make people more competent and responsible? I think that's a naiive overestimation of the state's abilities.

Maybe I missed where he said it's the states job to make people more competent and responsible http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag.../confused1.gif

Where is he saying that.

Show me.

Show me.

It's kind of hard to get people to be selfless, nationalist drones without invoking state power. The question is... are these people competent and responsible? Of course not! But the use of the conjunction "who" by Korimyr suggests that he believes otherwise. Which, I say, is naiive.

You can misapply logic, twist or add words, or meanings, and say just about ANYTHING is naiive.

I will admit to some naiivette here.

That I'm bothering even reading your responses to anyone.

Get real.

Maybe I'll "wise up" eh http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag.../confused1.gif

I don't see what your point is, if you have one.

I would like balanced budgets, because I see the government as an ongoing enterprise, and the inflation that results from unbalanced budgets wreaks havoc on the economy.
I will let a woman decide what to do with her body.
I would like a policy that secures peace and freedom, at the minimum cost, which would be a combination of defense and diplomacy.
Large standing military forces are what turn Republics into empires.
I am not a big fan of affirmative action, I don't care who gets married.
My feeling is "Why shouldn't the gays suffer too"

I think Doniston was right for the most part the people the OP talks about are called moderates.

Cool topic, especially since it gives me a chance to rant about how "conservatives' aren't really conservatives anymore. There was a time when conservatives were anti-big government, anti-defecits, anti-government surveillance, anti-intrustion into privacy. The whole idea behiind conservatism was that Americans could do just find on their own thank you very much and didnt need anyone helping or monitoring them. It seems like modern day conservatives have held onto the idea that the government shouldn't help people (anti-welfare, anti-social security, anti-public education etc) but totally forgotten the anti-big government parts of their ideology with this War on Terror situtation. And completely forgotten theit laissez faire roots by backing the biggest corporate welfare administration this country has ever seen, ever. Conservatives used to be anti abortion AND anti death penalty, because they felt the government can't sanction the taking of human life.

Liberals on the other hand have been forced into an equally problematic position. They tend to normally be in favor of major government intervention into peoples lives in the form of social assistance, education, job training, fair housing programs etc etc. Yet they've found themselves divesting of homegrown institutions due to their lack of support for faith based grassroots organisations.

I pretty much agree with goober. I want the budget to be conservative. I don't agree with spending money we don't have and borrowing trillions from other countries. I think Katrina relief and the Iraq war should be included in the budget, that's just dishonest to leave them out.

I personally would never have an abortion, but I wouldn't tell anyone else what they can or cannot do with their own body. I would rather see sex ed and birth control so abortions are not needed, but I can't say we should remove the right to have them.

Gay marraige - who does it hurt? Like goober said, let them suffer through it like we have to! LOL!

More money for education and less money for war.

A real war on terror would be preferable to the mess we are in in Iraq.

A flat income tax - say 15% for everyone.

Don't forget that conservatives used to be against agressive wars (they were isolationist.)

Just playing the part of a mimic in HAVING no point is all http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...lies/smile.gif

First one I agree with, second one is tough because yes I agree it is a womans body, but, it takes two to tango and the father helped create what would be aborted but thats an entire different thread so I wont go into it.
Third one I agree with
Fourth one I disagree, a small standing army invites attack by others. What I feel we need is a strong, competent military with the best weapons and equipment out there.
Fifth point AA is needed in SOME cases, but overall its usefullness is done, and your last point LMAO I agree.

I think people develop competence and responsibility in response to their environments, and that the State is a legitimate part of everyone's environment.

No, I don't think that the State can make people more competent and responsible, but it can implement policies that encourage and reward these traits-- or it can refrain from implementing policies that suppress them. Part of the problem is that most people who make similar claims is that they primarily believe in punishing people whom they view as "irresponsible", while doing nothing towards (or deliberately withdrawing from) supporting their ideal of responsibility.

It is telling that you automatically conflate both nationalism and a social conscience with "selfless drones". I know who I am and what I want, and my behaviors are rationally consistent with both; I think this statement is a deliberate attempt to structure the debate in a way that makes disagreeing with you impossible, if not a thinly veiled ad hominem.

Yes, I do believe that people who place the well-being of others above-- or at least on level with-- their own are "responsible". Competence is a separate issue, and a big part of our social problems is that the two are not necessarily linked.

Perhaps my belief in the general usefulness of government is naïve, but no more so than your belief in the good intentions of businessmen. Without government, there's nothing preventing them from using force and fraud to support their bottom lines-- and the long history of their collusion with government proves that it is effective to do so.

I think on the whole a "cross ideological" policy is in effect the cries of moderates to want a "third party". There are many who are centre right and centre left who never generally agree with the base (which has the more hardcore views) of their party. Of course there's no possibility of a viable third party but it does raise the question of whether the Dems'll ever nominate a Lieberman again or we'd ever nominate a McCain if too many moderates just get too riled up with the more hardline members of the party.

Oh, good. I was worried that you believed that the State should punish people for being "irresponsible." I'll agree with you that such should not be done.

It is telling that you automatically conflate both nationalism and a social conscience with "selfless drones". I know who I am and what I want, and my behaviors are rationally consistent with both; I think this statement is a deliberate attempt to structure the debate in a way that makes disagreeing with you impossible, if not a thinly veiled ad hominem. Well, there are still many individuals whose self-interest does not coincide with the "national interest" or "societal interest," whatever that may be. What should be done about them? And furthermore, who defines "national interest" or "societal interest?" Nations and societies don't have collective minds, so these "interests" are ultimately defined by individuals; individuals with self-interest. So state power does not mold individuals to act in the interests of the "nation" or "society," but in the interests of state officials. Take a look at wars, for example.

The issue of "selfless drones" arises when people are told that they must subjugate their own interests to the "national" interest. The extent of this subjugation determines the extent of the "drone-ness." In full force, this gives us kamikaze warriors. In its absence, it gives us...(gasp)... capitalist traders. In "moderation," it gives us silly patriots who are willing to fight silly wars as long as they're paid well with the money they gave up to the "national interest." When people are willing to subjugate their interests to the "national interest," we don't have a strong society. We have a problem.

Yes, I do believe that people who place the well-being of others above-- or at least on level with-- their own are "responsible". Competence is a separate issue, and a big part of our social problems is that the two are not necessarily linked. Insofar as these people truly believe in promoting the well-being of others, rather than the well-being of some at the expense of others, then I will agree with you. But insofar as government officials, too, are self-interested, then I do not think government can promote altruism.

Perhaps my belief in the general usefulness of government is naïve, but no more so than your belief in the good intentions of businessmen. Without government, there's nothing preventing them from using force and fraud to support their bottom lines-- and the long history of their collusion with government proves that it is effective to do so. Like you said, the State is part of people's environment. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

I'm a jack-booted thug, and I don't make any bones about it, but I don't believe in wasting money and lives on stupid policy.

You can't make people stay sober, work full-time, or raise their children properly by putting them in jail. You can, however, create a criminal subculture that allows 10-year-olds to make small fortunes slinging coke, overflow the Welfare lines, and support domestic lawlessness and foreign tyranny.

On the other hand, if you give people access to education, show them the dangers of irresponsible behavior, and make sure that people are rewarded for hard work and honesty, most of them will straighten out and fly right. The reduced load means we'll have a much easier time dealing with the rest.

If they're breaking the laws as they stand, enforce the law. Just because a law's damned foolish doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced to the best of our ability until we get our acts together and remove it from the books.

If they're not, we shouldn't do anything against them-- but we should rearrange the laws until self-interest and national interest are properly aligned again. Taxation and regulation are powerful tools, when they are used with finesse.

Honestly, I think most people promote our national interests well enough when left alone; our system has been pretty good at aligning them. We just need to pursue more sensible policies regarding people dropping out of the system and people exploiting it.

Doing useful work, providing useful goods and services, and paying your taxes are all socially beneficial; having a family and raising your children to be happy, successful, and moral is socially beneficial.

You said it yourself: "state officials". Of course, it's our job to select state officials whose definitions of national interest fit ours.

If you want something a little more objective, you can look at numbers; Gross Domestic Product, Human Development Index, Crime Rates, Employment, Literacy, et cetera.

Indeed, which is what makes it so utterly important that we select our State officials properly. We give them a lot of power, and like any other form of power-- lawyers, guns, and money-- we need to watch them carefully and crack down on them hard when they abuse their power.

There's nothing wrong with capitalist traders, as long as they're governed properly. Remember, though, that all pirates are traders too; if it's quicker, easier, or cheaper to rob you or defraud you than to pay you, a shrewd businessman will do so. Otherwise, he loses business to the ones that do.

Good government makes sure that it's quicker, easier, and cheaper to trade fair.

Similarly, we have a problem when people thoroughly disregard national interest. Look at drug dealers; while this problem only exists because we created it, they're a perfect example of people placing their own interests above those of society.

They lie and cheat, and they use force against their competitors, innocent people, and even their own customers when they can get away with it.

Or, look at defense contractors and the media pushing the government into war for their own bottom lines. Can't tell me that actively promoting a war is good for the country, except possibly for the economic effects.

It's a matter of degree. Some people have enough resources that a little expense, in the form of taxes, does not damage their well-being. That money can be spent in a way that dramatically improves someone else's well-being; if, as a side effect, the crime rate goes down and consumer spending goes up, then everyone's well-being is increased.

Of course, not everyone who pays taxes is rich enough that they don't matter, but I'd still maintain that the net effect is positive for the vast majority of people.

Probably not complete altruism, but I wouldn't expect that of anyone. Hell, you have to have something before you can give it away, and you have to keep some for yourself if you intend to make more.

Honestly, I don't think there's a clean line between selfless and selfish. There's merely degrees of each-- both in intentions and in effects.