Fiscal
Constitutional/legal
Moral
Individuals range from conservative to liberal in all three areas, not necessarily in concert.
1. Fiscal conservatives want less government spending and less government control over private business. Fiscal liberals want practically unlimited government spending and control over all aspects of business. They believe in redistribution of wealth.
2. Constitutional conservatives want us to live by the constitution, believe in state’s rights, and want less government interference in all aspects of our lives. They believe in a strong military and control of the borders. Constitutional liberals see the constitution and laws as suggestions. They believe in the “spirit of the law” rather than the “letter of the law.” They want a weakened military and open borders.
3. Moral conservatives agree that our nation cannot survive unless the people are moral and religious. They are opposed to abortion, homosexual marriage, legalized drugs, and a host of other sins. They are often torn between wanting a moral populace and not wanting government interference into private or religious matters. Moral liberals want sin to be legal. They vary from that being a passive legality to being a vigorous government promotion of sinful activities and persecution of people who stand up for their religious rights or moral beliefs.
We have two political parties, but three areas of concern. The democrat party currently is to the left in all three areas and seems to be moving even farther left. Their adherents vary from mildly to rabidly leftist.
The republican party claims to be conservative in all three areas, but many elected republicans do not vote or govern that way. Rank and file republicans tend to be conservative, but by varying degrees in each of the three areas of discussion. If they were truly conservative, so would their elected representatives vote and govern.
While libertarians claim to be conservative, they are only conservative on item number one. They are with the democrat party to a large extent on items two and three. The exceptions to this are states rights and wanting the government to enforce laws that require moral people to pay for immoral behaviors of others. The one area where libertarians may be truly conservative is in wanting less government spending and control, though they do tend to want the government to rein in “big business.”
No party with any following currently follows a strictly conservative path, as do very few citizens. The electorate is becoming increasingly fractured, making it difficult for any party to govern. Since the default pathway for anything is from order to disorder, the leftist agenda increasingly becomes the default pathway for America. Until or unless the different types of “conservatives” can unite, this will continue with only occasional slight deviations from that downward spiral.
For most of America’s history, morality was the default norm, so elections were a balance between more government or less government in whatever the current pressing issues were.
Americans are currently split almost 50/50 in all three areas of discussion. The problem is that the conservatives are fractured and the liberals are united (contrary to what many believe). The leftist agenda has been advanced because liberal people tend to vote FOR a candidate who supports liberalism, even if it is only in one or two areas out of the three areas. Once elected, these people vote and govern in unison toward increasingly socialistic government. Increasingly, conservative passions have been splintered to the point where they are ineffective. We are still able to get people elected who are purportedly conservative in one or two of the three areas, but then are unable to agree on a governing agenda. Thus, the governing agenda continues to default to liberalism.
I see this trend continuing unless there is again a mass renewal of individual American hearts back to Christianity and a moral lifestyle.
hahahahhahahahhahhahhahahhhhahaa!
u funny
With no one group able to establish a majority to rule, inertia and entropy take over and the decline toward less freedom and a more oppressive government continues basically unabated.
John Adams. "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
George Washington agreed. "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."
"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
"There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
It seems to me, they questioned whether we should have any political parties at all.
Sounds good to me.
HA, not to further complicate things, but Libertarians are not monolithic. They are splintered into several sub-groups and don't really get along. For instance, there's the Main group which includes people like the Koch Brothers, Rand Paul, PJ O'Rourke, Milton Friedman, Clint Eastwood, Penn and Teller, John Stossel, etc. They are very closely aligned with Tea Party Republicans and very conservative on items 1 and 2. They tend to be less fervent about religion. Then you have the Anarcho-Capitalist group that include people like Lew Rockwell, Tom Delorenzo, etc. They believe themselves to be 'pure' libertarians and call the main group "beltway" libertarians. This group is the most vehemently anti-war. They are also very strict Christians and very knowledgeable about theology. Their "patron saint" is Ludwig Von Mises.
But all Libertarians want smaller government, strict adherence to the Constitution, and believe economic freedom and personal freedom go hand in glove.
"With no one group able to establish a majority to rule, inertia and entropy take over and the decline toward less freedom and a more oppressive government continues basically unabated."
How can laws be passed to restrict freedom and become more oppressive if it is harder to "Establish a majority to rule"?
Do you really believe we should be ruled by political parties?
President, Senator, or Representative are public servants the way I see it, not rulers....
They did see them as evil and the kindling of animosity between individuals.
Washington went on the say that political parties to some extent could have a positive impact insofar as they kept alive the spirit of Liberty. That spirit of party should not be encouraged in elective government. It would open the door to foreign influence and corruption.
For all their faults and there were many, being only men, they were prophetic in this regard.
It is for these reasons, I have difficulty encouraging the pigeon holing of a populace into 2 or even 8 political categories or parties or a "subject" to their whims. Of course, that's essentially what we've become.
If you're too big to fail, or too big to jail, you're just too damned big. Until political parties deal with that I have little need or desire for them to succeed.
gflight "How can laws be passed to restrict freedom and become more oppressive if it is harder to "Establish a majority to rule"?"
No law needs to be passed to make that happen. It happens on its own unless laws are passed to keep it from happening.
"Do you really believe we should be ruled by political parties?" No, society must be ruled by their Christian moral beliefs, or the people end up being ruled by an ever-increasingly oppressive government.