"Are you now or have you ever been..."

Opposing change is a hallmark of conservation in both its conventional sense and its political one. I don't know why they should have to hide what they are.

benbradley said:

I'd settle for a seven billion party system.

Click to expand...

That's to accommodate those with multiple personalities?

Ben has let it slip that he wants America to RULE THE WORLD!

But, on topic...this...whole thing, I dunnkow. Part of me understands and gets the concept of "If something aint broke, don't fix it" but going so far into that direction that most of your party's talking points becomes entirely about being AGAINST something...

It just strikes me as off. Change is necessary, else stagnation and rot sets in.

Doesn't matter whether change is necessary or not. It's going to happen regardless. Some just want to slow down the process.

SPMiller said:

Doesn't matter whether change is necessary or not. It's going to happen regardless. Some just want to slow down the process.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps bring about change in an appropriate fashion, by thinking through the risks and consequences sufficiently...

We could institute a change right now that all citizens must be naked at all times. Hey, it's change, so it's going to happen!

AMCrenshaw said:

What's the left-wing equivalent? There must be something similar right?

Click to expand...

There must be, or they wouldn't have tried to give the proverbial shaft to Lieberman at the party level...

SPMiller said:

Doesn't matter whether change is necessary or not. It's going to happen regardless. Some just want to slow down the process.

Click to expand...

And some shut their eyes, plug their ears, and jam on the accelerator.

Not all change is progress, and not all opposition to change is reactionary.

And those of us in the passenger seats are thrown around the vehicle while they fight over which pedal to push.

It's possible to take metaphors to the point that they have no meaning. The above two posts are good examples.

clintl said:

That's to accommodate those with multiple personalities?

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the world population, and a few extra for near-term growth.

Zoombie said:

Ben has let it slip that he wants America to RULE THE WORLD!

Click to expand...

What I had in mind was having everyone in the world be a member of their very own personal political party, kind of equivalent to zero political parties. I was thinking of everyone being able to vote in their own elections, but I suppose what I said could be interpreted as everyone voting in American elections, which would mean the whole world rules America.

Don't know what to add, but what a stupid idea. You don't believe X so you can't be in our club! BAH!


I wrote a term paper on political parties starting with the revolutionary period though 199whatever year it was and it seems like there isn't room for more than two. It seems to me that right now Dems and Reps don't resemble the Dems and Reps of the past much. Except for being politicians. The more things change the more they stay the same.

BenPanced said:

GOP officials are mulling a "purity test".

Click to expand...

I think a Pierre-Joseph Proudhon quote is in order here, just to be contrary:

"The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason."

Oh, I like that one.

SPMiller said:

Opposing change is a hallmark of conservation in both its conventional sense and its political one. I don't know why they should have to hide what they are.

Click to expand...

How does that fit in with abortion rights? We have them. Taking them away would mean change.

Celia Cyanide said:

How does that fit in with abortion rights? We have them. Taking them away would mean change.

Click to expand...

Now, what's the idea, bringing logic to this smackdown on conservatives discussion???

Celia Cyanide said:

How does that fit in with abortion rights? We have them. Taking them away would mean change.

Click to expand...

That the change already happened doesn't mean factions who opposed it in the past can't still be opposing it.