Progressive vs. conservative

[N_Jay]

Do you see this as;
Fair,
Pro Progressive,
or Pro Conservative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The heart of conservationism is:
"Build on what has been shown to work",
and the heart of progressivism is:
"Build on new ideas".

Neither is bad or good until you either start throwing out new good ideas just to build on what has been proven,
or start throwing out old good ideas just to build on something new.

[Thayne]

Better run that by Thomas Jefferson---

[dracer777]

Wirelessly posted (MOT-QA30/00.72 UP.Browser/7.2.7.5.610 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

I do not believe everything that used to work, works now.

I also do not believe new ideas are bad.

Just use common sense, it will save you from heartache in most cases.

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by Thayne

Better run that by Thomas Jefferson---

I would if I could.

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by dracer777

Wirelessly posted (MOT-QA30/00.72 UP.Browser/7.2.7.5.610 (GUI) MMP/2.0)

I do not believe everything that used to work, works now.

I also do not believe new ideas are bad.

Just use common sense, it will save you from heartache in most cases.

It does not say that all old ideas are good, nore all new ideas are bad.

The issue the way I see it;
(This applies well beyond politics; Think conservative design vs progressive design)

Conservative has a preference for proven over new,
and
Progressive has a preference for new over proven.

So, what is your definition of "Common Sense"?

[poltergeisty]

–noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.

I think Thomas Jefferson may reply, "ask yourself if you are a Loyalist."

[barry008]

What were the founding fathers thoughts on progressive/conservative views? They were forming new ideas on practically nothing by implementing ideas opposite of what wasn't working by being subjects of England. They were proposing a republic as opposed to a monarchy from where most of them began. I believe progressivism worked in this case (for at least 233 years, now). Would you say that conservatives in this political arena have built upon the progressives of the past?

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by poltergeisty

–noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.

I think Thomas Jefferson may reply, "ask yourself if you are a Loyalist."

But I was interested in dracer777's definition, since he is the one who used the term.

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by barry008

What were the founding fathers thoughts on progressive/conservative views? They were forming new ideas on practically nothing by implementing ideas opposite of what wasn't working by being subjects of England. They were proposing a republic as opposed to a monarchy from where most of them began. I believe progressivism worked in this case (for at least 233 years, now). Would you say that conservatives in this political arena have built upon the progressives of the past?

Are you sure?

Could you be misinterpreting their application of ideas "new to them" as completely "new ideas".
Weren't these individuals well studied on both the successes and failures of other forms of government?

My belief is that the system they put in place was based more on a combination of ideas that had been shown to work, and the elimination (or minimization) of ideas that had been shown NOT to work, and very little "new and untested ideas".

[barry008]

Are you sure?

Nope, wasn't there, but would love to had been! I bet it would have been debate at its finest! If you mean up to now, yes. There were very few democracies/republics in those days except for what the colonists had set up under English governors who of course were appointed by the King of England, but you know that better than I do.

Could you be misinterpreting their application of ideas "new to them" as completely "new ideas".
Weren't these individuals well studied on both the successes and failures of other forms of government?

I believe that they were more concerned about the English monarchy's taxation with no representation to begin with than with what form of government America needed until after seccession. I am answering this fast but I am also searching for democracies and republic forms of governments in the late 1700's. My answer right now is - no they didn't have much to go on except for the Magna Carta. The continental congress formed these ideas, debated them and wrote the ideas down as the constitution and with the acts of the British army fresh in their minds, the bill of rights, also.

My belief is that the system they put in place was based more on a combination of ideas that had been shown to work, and the elimination (or minimization) of ideas that had been shown NOT to work, and very little "new and untested ideas".

Actually our republic/democracy was originally thought not to have a snowballs chance when first debuted to the general public because it was so new. I think that their ideas were very progressive. Since then, convened congresses have added to the original making them, IMO and your definition, conservatives. Our whole new government was "new and untested".

[N_Jay]

I guess you give them more credit as visionaries than I do.
And I give then more credit s educated historians than you do.

I don't doubt the success of their visionary skills, but see it firmly rooted in the history that came before.

[barry008]

Yes, the founding fathers were very educated visionaries.

[redhelmet13]

Progressives tend to believe in equal results for all, whereas Conservatives believe in equal opprotunity to succeed (or fail). I choose equal opprotunity.

[dracer777]

Originally Posted by redhelmet13

Progressives tend to believe in equal results for all, whereas Conservatives believe in equal opprotunity to succeed (or fail). I choose equal opprotunity.

well said, and i agree.

[poltergeisty]

I have to say that "new and untested" is the idea of America in its self. The problem lies in logic, sound judgment, and above all else commonsense politics. Either side, if it ain't good for America, it shall drop faster than a tyrants head!

[N_Jay]

Originally Posted by poltergeisty

I have to say that "new and untested" is the idea of America in its self. . . .

I HAVE to say;
I disagree.
The founders may have visionaries in the way they assembled the concepts this country is based on, but those concepts were not untested.
History tested them, and they were well studied in history.
Not like most of the political wonks of today, who think 20 years is "long ago".

[Thayne]

IMHO this discussion would be great around a big round table with coffee in the morning or beers at night--only because my typing fingers are tired.

[K9JLR]

The founding fathers were more conservative in principle than not. They were protesting that their ancient chartered rights were being violated by the mother country. They wanted taxation from their own colonial legislatures, not enlightened despots. The British constitution was very much a "living, breathing" and overly flexible document chocked full of traditions, but the restrictive actions that Britain had imposed on the colonies was unconstitutional by their means. The British constitution was way too flexible for the colonists, who were "inflexibly" committed to upholding their traditional rights and liberties (using as part of their basis the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the British Bill of Rights). The colonists desired the continuation of the system of self-rule that they had enjoyed (internally) for decades prior to the onset of excessive taxation and restrictions, a return to their own "status quo" if you will. Conservatives would seek to maintain the rights that they enjoyed from tradition and custom.

[KC9NCF]

Realistically there is no difference between political parties. They all are greedy, they all talk about how well they can "serve the people" but then only serve themselves, they all are primarily interested in power, authority, and control.

In short, we need to extend the definition of "whacker" to politicians because of their excessive need to feel important, look important, act important, use authority where they have none, show knowledge where they have none, drive flashy cars with lights on them (recently saw an Illinois plate that said "Official House" with the state seal on it and a small number in place where the plate number usually is and this guy had a real good light show on his car.

Another distinctive characteristic of politicians of all parties is that they all have personal emotional security issues. They all have drinking problems regardless of how much they deny it, they all have a gang mentality in that they will not do anything unless they have their worthless friends there with them. Shall I say more?

[Thayne]

Originally Posted by KC9NCF

Realistically there is no difference between political parties. They all are greedy, they all talk about how well they can "serve the people" but then only serve themselves, they all are primarily interested in power, authority, and control.

In short, we need to extend the definition of "whacker" to politicians because of their excessive need to feel important, look important, act important, use authority where they have none, show knowledge where they have none, drive flashy cars with lights on them (recently saw an Illinois plate that said "Official House" with the state seal on it and a small number in place where the plate number usually is and this guy had a real good light show on his car.

Another distinctive characteristic of politicians of all parties is that they all have personal emotional security issues. They all have drinking problems regardless of how much they deny it, they all have a gang mentality in that they will not do anything unless they have their worthless friends there with them. Shall I say more?

Yo; is that you--? Ray "Hot" Air