quote:

Originally posted by Lilith The other thing that always bothered me with most of the democratic nations was the lack of alternatives and the lack of competition as it's nearly always at a federal level, just the left and just the right. There's no 3rd Party, just a two party system which I honestly don't feel seems to work all that well, especially when they swing very far right and very far left because you're getting into dangerous territory there with people which have very little sway with their opinions, personality and 'hard liners' tend to make me nervous. Fair enough they have their place by representing that part of the community but I do think they're over-represented in governments and way too noisy when it comes to directing party policies. You get hard liners like the 'Neo-Conservatives' (a name I dislike) who are swung so far right they're verging on fascism and the extreme left wingers who are closer to communism than anything else. Neither are very useful in a democratic government.

Actually there are third parties in many countries. Britain has three parties and the labor party has kind of become the "middle" party to the other two (Liberal Democrats and Conservatives) who swing more to left and right. The biggest problem in the states and in some other countrires like Canada, is that the third parties don't have as much say in the political process because they don't have as much money thus they don't have as much influence politically.

And the Neo-Conservatives aren't as far right as you are making them out to be. They were actually disillusioned liberals and trotskyists (a form of socialism) and libertarians (or neo-libertarians). Read up on Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss. Their ideas are a combination of economic liberalism, military conservatism (pre-emptive war, american dominance in the middle east and in the world), liberal ideas about nation building and interventionalism, and libertarian ideas about limiting government, cutting back on social spending, elimination of the welfare state.

Essentially, it's cutting back on it at home, but expanding it abroad. It's kind of like "we'll give money to other countries and for war, but cut funding for programs at home". You could think about it as reverse socialism or communism. Laisse Faire government at home (when it comes to the nation's needs, socially or economically) but a government that is still large enough to be seen as anything but conservative.

Traditional conservatism would be closer to traditional libertarianism (or classical liberalism), which would value individualism, non-interventionalism, cutting back on spending (fiscal responsibility), have a balanced budget, and not get involved in nation building or "spreading freedom or democracy" which is just a ploy to spread American influence (it's the foundation for the think tank "The Project For The New American Century").

Last edited by Spirit5 on Apr-10-2007 at 02:28