Hmmm. I really disagree with how you characterize things. There are many approaches for me to try to explain why.
I could take a political one and talk about the views of women who fought for suffrage, and women against slavery, and their reasoning for being so, and how you might consider what drove them to be conservative ideals.
Both major parties have morphed in terms of what is considered part of their ideology. Southern Democrats were powerfully pro-slavery, for example.
>Why is it in hind-sight many liberal causes are now viewed as the correct and moral thing but at the time are considered controversial?
This question is kinda difficult to approach, because again, what you think goes into a conservative's idealogy could likely be beliefs someone supporting these causes had.
>Liberal: Women should have the right to vote; There should be equal pay for equal work; The Iraq war should've never started; the environment is getting worse, etc.
Suffrage-it's worth checking out what views these women had.
Iraq War - Libertarians of today are more like average citizen Republicans of yesterday, and many are definitely against it.
The environment- This is more of a modern issue in terms of how relevant it is to people politically, so it's hard to do the comparison.
>Conservative: Women generally don't work outside the home and are not up on political issues, they are not educated enough to know how to vote with their minds or they will just do what their husbands say; Women are only making "pin money" and don't need to get paid equal to a man. There are weapons of mass destruction. The environment is fine...oh yeah, the economy is fine. Love that one.
Many conservatives don't appeal to the bible, and don't believe it should be, but that said, in the bible you have Lydia, a business woman, regarded positively, and women in leadership positions, including a queen, also regarded positively.
What people do react to is "imposed roles" which may not inhibit those things but do encourage the woman as domestically minded and man as breadwinner. I believe there are roles men and women are naturally dispositioned to do well in, but there isn't rationale for women being less educated, and just sticking to the home. There isn't rationale saying a man can't enjoy homemaking and dealing with his children.
Domestic doesn't have to mean banal either, and before public education, it couldn't afford to mean that.
That characterization is like saying liberal women are against families. People would necessarily object.
You would probably consider me conservative, and I don't think the economy is fine. I didn't believe as undeniable fact that there were WMD's. I was 17 when the Iraq war started, and I just knew I didn't know much, but I think I did lean to believing they were there, like many ordinary, busy people probably did when it was officially announced. Now I'm sure you mean
holding onto the notion in light of mounting reason to believe otherwise, and I'm sure more people on the right did. When it comes to the prevailing ideologies of the two parties
today, I think I prefer a Democratic president because s/he'll probably be less hawkish, and a Republican congress. Historically that mix has spent the least too, while Republican presidents with Democratic congresses have spent the most.
>Then later:
Conservative: Nevermind! Okay, women can vote...we'll even throw in a token female to show we care. We won't address the equal pay issue...it's all about the free market, but we are not going to take an official stance to say women "shouldn't" get equal pay because we don't want to come across as jerks. Oh yeah, there aren't weapons of mass destruction and we shouldn't have gone to Iraq but now we're there and we believe the ends justifies the means (very moral!!! *sarcasm*) Okay, maybe we need to at least look like we're somewhat interested in the environment, dang it!!!
I do believe we should let the market figure stuff out.
Here's why Challenging the status quo at the
root of our problems is something neither candidates are proposing.
The real problem is where control of our money supply is concentrated, and democrats and republicans are both ponds in that situation. What Thomas Jefferson considered the greatest affront to liberty, more so than standing armies, is exactly the dynamic we have with the federal reserve system. JFK was the last president to speak out about it.
I can understand why you put conservatives into the camp you do, but seriously it's akin to me putting liberals into broad, negatively connotated camps. It strikes me that modern liberals, in retrospect, are attempting to monopolize historical efforts as their causes alone. There are times where what you would consider pursuing equality was opposed by democrats, and I don't just mean pro-slavery dems. Science isn't in opposition to my conservative thinking either, and I don't know how Darwin would have stood politically, but consider what he thought of women.
To answer your question, I think so too, but I don't believe if humanity "progresses" it necessarily does what is "right" as a result. I believe there's a fixed standard of right that can be deviated from, and people can feel righteous about deviating from it and be wrong. It all comes down to whether a fixed standard exists of course, and while I believe one does, I understand that others don't. But yeah, the way we're headed, what you're saying is most likely the case.
As Gilda used to say "Never Mind."
Linear Mode
