1.
"Although they will be regularly deployed this campaign season, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have largely lost analytical usefulness -- if they ever had any."
2.
"The people who opposed the Iraq war and still oppose it are called "liberals." Those who advocated it and still support it are called "conservatives."
Full Story »
To:
Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.
Note:
This piece isn't totally clear to me, but it seems to say that conservatives are defined by the neo-conservative vision. Evidence is present, but sources for the numbers would help.
This surely rates as one of the worst opinion pieces I have read in quite some time. Not only is it poorly written, with no clear sense of direction, it doesn't really address what the title indicates is the argument being made! It is a hodge-podge of relatively interesting observations, sans analysis, organization or obvious point. I would expect better from a high-school student; the Post-Gazette should be embarrassed to publish this drivel. (P.S. I didn't like it.)
Poor journalism. Extremely important topic because in a sound bite news environment, name calling by illogical labels frame the debate and distracts from legitimate discourse. Mr. Hart drifts from the central theme and arguments are disjointed from his (important and true) initial premise and conclusion about the logical absurdity of such labels since there are no "pure" forms of these animals.
In some broad sense on an optimism-caution spectrum (e.g., Locke vs. Hobbes) the terms may have value, but analytic realism — fact plus analysis — is what ... More »
The author makes some points on history, with little mention of liberal and conservative stance, but then makes a nonsensical jump to "the people who opposed the Iraq war and still oppose it are called "liberals." Those who advocated it and still support it are called "conservatives."", which was true then, and certainly now, at least generally. Although there might be complexities and subtleties to the political spectrum, the against-the-war stance was true then as it is now. ... More »
This short opinion piece lays bare the astounding arrogance and stupidity of the "neocons" whose agenda of controlling the world is coming unstuck with the disaster in Iraq, etc. The radical interventionism has nothing "conservative" about it, and those objecting to the squandering of trillions of US taxpayer dollars are not being "liberal" by voicing those objections.
Liberal and conservative are well understood terms with commonly understood meaning. Liberals expand government and have a soft foreign policy. Pre-1972 democrats had a tough foreign policy, so there was a shift. Of course the difference between the US parties is small compared to many other countries. Roosevelt didn't save anything and didn't think big thoughts. He was political through and through and the new deal was about buying votes. Roosevelt was an admirer of Mussolini. The ... More »
