On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:51:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> To be honest, if you define "conservative" as, "Having a strict dogma,
> which must be followed.", then.. there is no "extreme liberals". 

Which isn't how I was defining "conservative".  I was using the US 
political definitions, and we do have extremists at both ends of the 
spectrum.

My perception, though, is that there are more extremists/extreme 
positions on the right, but I'm fully aware of my biases there as a 
social liberal myself (I do tend to consider myself fiscally 
conservative, though, so I'm not easily pigeonholed).

> The
> problem is inflexibility, from both extremes, with respect to accepting
> any fact, idea, or proposition, which doesn't fit their perception of
> how the universe works. That, and, much more to the point, both fear of
> the imagined consequences, and denial of the possibility they could be
> wrong about it.

Yep, that's a huge problem.  It pretty much defines the political 
landscape here in the US right now - nobody can compromise because 
they're too invested in positions and backed by people who are unwilling 
to compromise - even if the politician is.

We need term limits, and restrictions on leaving government and working 
for governmental lobbies.  Such a high percentage of people in elected 
office go on to become lobbyists that while they're legislating, they're 
thinking about their own future jobs and appeasing their future bosses.

That's just wrong, because it doesn't put the country first.  They 
convince themselves that they DO put the country first, but when they're 
thinking about their next job first, then clearly the country is at least 
second.

Jim

Post a reply to this message