What is the United States of America?

[caretaker1]

Seems obvious on the surface, but I'm interested to hear the different answers here. Just asking what it means to you. What are the essential elements of it?

[Broken Glass Can]

The USA is the high standard that all other nations aspire to imitate.

[caretaker1]

What specifically about it makes it the high standard?

[dr_venkman]

Because if they don't recognize it as the high standard we'll kill them.


To me the U.S. of A was an expiriment in profound freedom set in a fertile environment from sea to shining sea.

Too bad it got populated by a bunch of assholes. It could have been nice.

[bholdr]

"The USA is the high standard that all other nations aspire to imitate."

well... it was thirty or forty years ago, anyway...

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
"The USA is the high standard that all other nations aspire to imitate."

well... it was thirty or forty years ago, anyway...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, other nations don't seem to aspire so high.

[bholdr]

"to soar with the pigs and wallow with the eagles"

-HST

[Felix_Nietsche]

Answer: It is the best country in the world to pursue your dreams.

Why is it the best country in the world to pursue your dreams?
The culture of economic freedom USA allows individuals the opportunity to achieve great things in life that they could not achieve on other countries.

Unfortunately there has been a huge cultural battle fought in the USA the last 75 years (started w/ FDR) between liberals who want to change the economic culture of the USA to a 'typical European welfare state' and conservatives who want to maintain the culture of economic freedom. Unfortunately the typical economic conservative does not earn high marks when it comes to protecting social freedoms. The result is a choice between the lesser of two evils. The choice is easy for me. Vote for conservatives. Economic freedom naturally leads to more social freedoms despite laws which are passed to restrict social freedoms. The more money the people keep, the less money the govt has to try to control your life.... And that is a good thing.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Answer: It is the best country in the world to pursue your dreams.

Why is it the best country in the world to pursue your dreams?
The culture of economic freedom USA allows individuals the opportunity to achieve great things in life that they could not achieve on other countries.

Unfortunately there has been a huge cultural battle fought in the USA the last 75 years (started w/ FDR) between liberals who want to change the economic culture of the USA to a 'typical European welfare state' and conservatives who want to maintain the culture of economic freedom. Unfortunately the typical economic conservative does not earn high marks when it comes to protecting social freedoms. The result is a choice between the lesser of two evils. The choice is easy for me. Vote for conservatives. Economic freedom naturally leads to more social freedoms despite laws which are passed to restrict social freedoms. The more money the people keep, the less money the govt has to try to control your life.... And that is a good thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

POTD.

Look at where this mentality is leading Europe in the long term...

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
The choice is easy for me. Vote for conservatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard Rush Limbaugh today say that he admires the moral view of religious people who see the world in black and white, right and wrong. According to Rush there is no gray.

Your post reminds me of that. Utter BS.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"I heard Rush Linbaugh today say that he admires the moral view of religious people who see the world in black and white, right and wrong. According to Rush there is no gray. Your post reminds me of that. Utter BS."
************************************************** ******
Can anyone explain his chain of 'logic' to me?

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
Can anyone explain his chain of 'logic' to me?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not ask me?

[ QUOTE ]
conservatives who want to maintain the culture of economic freedom

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think you're talking to? Please! Conservatives in this present administration want to preserve the culture of global economic monopoly of big business.

Simply voting the conservative party is not the way to improve this country and it's pretty clear you're going to anyway no matter what, regardless of what scum the RNC conjures up next to run for office. I find that to be ridiculous.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Voting for the LESSER of two evils is ridiculous?
I suppose I should vote for the GREATER of two evils.
Now, I find that to be ridiculous.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[dr_venkman]

The 'lesser of two evils' is the choice they give to people who can't think of a third of their own.

Someone with your handle ought to know more about this subject than you appear to.

[Felix_Nietsche]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Who do you think you're talking to? Please! Conservatives in this present administration want to preserve the culture of global economic monopoly of big business.



[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to American liberals who fight against corporate hegemony?

[dr_venkman]

I don't speak for Liberals so I don't know.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Economic freedom naturally leads to more social freedoms despite laws which are passed to restrict social freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an argument for libertarianism, not conservatism. Conservatives believe the welfare state decreases motivation or fosters dependency; they're typically unsympthatheic to claims about social freedoms. What you're arguing for (more laissez-faire capitalism to foster indiviual freedom) is more Milton Friedman than Edmund Burke, so to speak; and while many refer to Friedman as a conservative, he was much more closely alligned with Neoliberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) than he was with classical conservatism.

This is just a point to exercise caution about political labels; I understand what you mean when you refer to yourself as a conservative, Felix; but if we put any value on heightened debate and intellectual honesty, than to refer to yourself as a conservative if you believe this to be true:

[ QUOTE ]
Economic freedom naturally leads to more social freedoms despite laws which are passed to restrict social freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

is wrong. You're much more liberal than you give yourself credit for, IMO.

[Felix_Nietsche]

There are many defintions of liberal and conservative. Before arguing a position BOTH PARTIES must agree to the SAME defintions.

E.g. When I was in college, William F. Buckley (the headmaster of American conservatism) came to campus to debate conservatism v. liberalism (I forget whom he debated). The defintions that they agreed upon were roughly as follows:

Conservatism: the belief that countries benefit more from smaller less active govt.
Liberalism: the belief that countries benefit more from larger more active govt.
***These are the defintions I subscribe to***

To call someone 'conservative' or 'liberal' is an ECONOMIC way of communicating what their BASIC set of political belief. Obviously some people's politcal beliefs can be quite complicated but it can take HOURS of careful questioning to discover all their politcal beliefs. Fuh-get-about-it. Give me the big picture. Call yourself 'conservative', 'liberal', or perhaps an hybrid of both.

Some people try to argue the defintion of political conservatism is advocating the status quo.
I think this is silly because a person can become conservative one day and liberal the next depending on what laws are passed. If the govt passes a law for higher taxes and I want lower taxes, I now become a 'liberal' because I want to change the status quo. Good defintions never change.


"Economic freedom naturally leads to more social freedoms despite laws which are passed to restrict social freedoms."
*************************************************
It is a cliche' but money is power. If people keep more of their money via lower taxes then the people have more power. If the govt keeps more money thru higher taxes, then the govt has more power. The less power the govt has, the less they can control people's lives.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
I've Already Tried Voting Libertarian

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! -lot of good that did you, 'eh?

but, seriously, I'll take personal and social freedom over economic freedom any day- i think you have it backwards when you say that economic freedom leads to social freedom.

actually, one isn't much good without the others; life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (the original phrasing of that famous statement) are all irrevocably connected.

[ACPlayer]

So, by this definition we have a liberal administration and congress at the moment. Who would have thunk it -- the Liberals are running the country!

[Dead]

Some people on here feel that we don't live in an "economically free" society, apparently.

The US has one of the freest economies in the world.

Having a safety net does not make a country less receptive to economic freedom. Likewise, having taxes doesn't mean that there isn't economic freedom.

[Felix_Nietsche]

There are very few pure conservatives. There are:
Economic Conservatives - Social Liberals (Rudy Guiliani?)
Economic Liberals - Social Conservatives (Alan Colmes)

Bush lowered taxes = Conservative move.
Sign Campaign Finance Reform (aka limiting political speech) = Liberal Move
Farm Bill = Liberal Move
Drug Bill = Liberal Move

Bush is not a very good conservative in my opinion... The fact he has not even used his veto power once to limit the size of govt is terrible. There are MANY THINGS he can be fairly criticized for but the left-wing-black-helicopter-kook crowd prefers to call him a nazi and cite silly conspiracy theories...

With regard to foreign policy this is an issue which transends conservative/liberal. In foreign policy, you decide what actions are needed to make your country safe and properous and take action. The American democrats are viewed as being INCREDIBLE WEAK in this arena which is the #1 reason Bush43 got re-elected...

[QuadsOverQuads]

There are words like Freedom
Sweet and wonderful to say.
On my heartstrings freedom sings
All day everyday.

There are words like Liberty
That almost make me cry.
If you had known what I know
You would know why.

-- Langston Hughes


q/q

[Felix_Nietsche]

Economic Freedom usually results in the people have more of their own money while the govt gets less of the people's money.
Less Money = Less Govt Power

E.g. The Govt can pass a laws to limit freedoms...BUT...they need money to enforce those laws. They are many laws on the books that are not enforced because the govt does not allocate the resources($) to enforce those laws...

[lehighguy]

Obvious Ones:
It is a republic based on representative government with elections based on a set of regulations outlined in the constitution but subsequently added upon.

It has a strong central government who has complete control over the means of force (no insurrections, no physical challenges to its authority, no seccession in last 150 years).

It is the #1 economy in terms of size and GDP/capita and also has the most powerful militarily.

It has the most diverse ethnic population of any major country due to a variety of social, cultural, economic, political, and historical factors.
__________________________________________________ _________
Less Obvious:

It has high levels of protection for freedom of speech, although these protection have become more of legal protections as social norms have turned against certain forms of speech. Nevertheless, still the most free place to express opinion and find a variety of diverse opinions.

Though began with very few government controls over economy and personal life, government gradually became more involved in the 1930's. It's income tax system, wealth redistribution programs, and various enviormental and safety regulations make its economy more controlled then say laizze faire countries in Asia and the third world, but less controlled then socialist countries in Europe.

International Relations: The USA practicies RealPolitic based on thier own self interest. This is the international standard for most countries in the world.

I could probably think of more to write but not right now

[ACPlayer]

Why is lowering taxes considered a conservative move?

Consider that if impact of lowering taxes is not to reduce the size of the govt but to increase the size of the deficit. The Bush43 tax cut did not lower the size of the govt it increased the deficit. Ergo it is not conservative or liberal but just stupid. Right?

Al Gore embarked on the true conservative policy with his Reduce Govt initiative -- I forget what it was called. Whether it was successful or not that is a seperate debate.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is lowering taxes considered a conservative move?

Consider that if impact of lowering taxes is not to reduce the size of the govt but to increase the size of the deficit. The Bush43 tax cut did not lower the size of the govt it increased the deficit. Ergo it is not conservative or liberal but just stupid. Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

The deficit you cite was increased through primarily spending, not through lowering taxes, I believe.

Very often, lowering taxes ultimately results in greater overall revenues due to greater economic growth. No doubt you have read adios' excellent posts on these matters so I won't elaborate further.

[ACPlayer]

The definition of conservative that was offered was one who works to reduce govt (paraphrased).

Doing the politically expedient thing by reducing taxes dodges the real work of the conservative which is to cut unneeded spending. The economic impact of or the revenue impact is not under discussion.

I stand by the question -- why is reducing taxes considered Conservative (by this or any other definition of Conservative that someone wishes to offer)?

The reasons frequently offered are:

1. It will reduce spending. How?
2. We should return the money to the people. But you cite statements that reducing taxes increases the overall and hence per capita tax revenue.
3. It will increase productivity. This is an OK argument though there are studies that show that the productivity impact is debatable.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Before arguing a position BOTH PARTIES must agree to the SAME defintions.

[/ QUOTE ]

If both parties agreed on the definitions, there likely wouldn't be an argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Conservatism: the belief that countries benefit more from smaller less active govt.
Liberalism: the belief that countries benefit more from larger more active govt.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct to note that Buckley is one of the godfather's of contemporary 'conservatism', which is to say he's partly responsible for the right's move away from true conservatism to a hybrid neoliberalism/libertarianism. True conservatives aren't concerned with benefits and harms.

[ QUOTE ]
To call someone 'conservative' or 'liberal' is an ECONOMIC way of communicating what their BASIC set of political belief. Obviously some people's politcal beliefs can be quite complicated but it can take HOURS of careful questioning to discover all their politcal beliefs. Fuh-get-about-it. Give me the big picture. Call yourself 'conservative', 'liberal', or perhaps an hybrid of both.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're implicitly agreeing with me that political labels, at least the way they're used in typical American political lexicon, are merely used to facilitate simplicity; I’m arguing that simplicity comes to the detriment of accuracy and nuance, and at the expense of a debate that possesses real depth.

If you'd like to refer to yourself as a conservative out of simplicity, fine. Far be it from me to get in the way of efficiency. But realize that efficiency often comes in the way of accuracy, and if you believe 'economic freedoms lead to social freedoms, and this is a benefit to society', then you're not a conservative.

[ QUOTE ]
Some people try to argue the defintion of political conservatism is advocating the status quo.
I think this is silly because a person can become conservative one day and liberal the next depending on what laws are passed. If the govt passes a law for higher taxes and I want lower taxes, I now become a 'liberal' because I want to change the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not necessarily true. Conservatives are in favor of the status quo, and believe progress should incrementally, or not at all. For example, using the hypothetical law you used - if the current income tax rate was 5%, and the new law adjusted tax rates to 30%, conservatives would vehemently object and continue to be conservative, as they're opposed to radical changes in laws; merely because laws change doesn't mean conservatives do. Conservatives just claim that the new law continues to violate the ‘true’ status quo, even if that law continues for hundreds of year.



[ QUOTE ]
Good defintions never change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why it’s a detriment to us all when words like ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are frequently so misused that a goodly number of Americans think liberal means something along the lines of “someone who likes trees, cappuccinos, killing the unborn, open-toed shoes and taxes” while conservative means something like “old white guys who hates gays.” I’m not accusing you (Felix) of such ignorance; you understand the debate here. But that having been said that, I believe advocating efficiency over accuracy comes with a price – that price being coarser, shallower political discourse.

[ACPlayer]

nuance

A mostly lost concept in political discourse (see Fox, Rush, the two parties, any senator,congress man, cabinet member, most posters on this forum).

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
nuance
A mostly lost concept in political discourse

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Fox, Rush, the two parties, any senator,congress man, cabinet member, most posters on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these people/entities are capable of nuance, I'm sure. They/we just choose not to, because discourse with people we disagree with is often difficult and frustrating. We'll frequently encounter opponents who will challenge us; these opponents will challenge our deepest held beliefs, and challenge everything we thought we knew, and it infuriates/frightens us. Studying politics/philosophy/jurisprudence for ourselves is difficult, and we might find information that challenges what we think we know, so we reject it altogether, without giving our opponent's views the respect they often deserve.

In the case of Fox, it's motivated by ratings and profit; many of us don't have the time/energy/motivation to learn the nuances of the news, so to speak. So we use Bill O'Reilly to fill us in. And the less nuance Bill O'Reilly uses, the better, because it just affirms what we already (wrongly) suspected - the world isn't complicated, it's black and white, and we don't need to take the time to study news/politics/policy, because we know everything anyway. I think the same applies to Limbaugh, except his audience is narrower and consists mainly of right-oriented listeners anyway, or left-oriented listeners looking to get angry.

As far as elected leaders go, I think their motivation is similar. Constituents are busy, politics is difficult to understand, news is endless/hard to follow/often lacks context, and people who think differently than us are really annoying; "since I couldn't possibly learn it all," the constituent thinks, "it's easiest not to learn any"; actually, I believe the average American wants to learn politics/philosophy; they're just too lazy to put in the work. So they rely on generalizations and false assumptions, which reinforce whatever their preconceived notions are. Politicians prey on this, and demand that we throw aside nuance, because it gets in the way of their practical ends - that is, demonization of the opponent.

I have high hopes for the posters on this board; they're all (I think?) poker players. They understand nuance. Or they should. When a new poker player asks, "I have KQo and some guy raises to my right - what do I do?!?!", the answer is, of course, "It depends."

I believe poker players, more than most, ought to understand that when Pundits/Anchors/Politicians/BlowHards say "Liberals are evil! Wrong on history! Taxes are bad!", or "Conservatives are evil! They hate women and minorities! They hate the poor!", these statements lack the necessary intricacy. Poker players ought to see the similarities between newbie poker players and the punditry/politicians, and recognize that both lack the necessary complexities and that we have to look deeper - much deeper.