Every action has unintended consequences - it's when they become too extreme or change is to rapid or poorly thought out that there is a problem. Liberals are not alone in the realm of "unintended consequences" (Iraq being one good example).
Iraq is improving. 98% of the violence there happens within a 50 mile radius of baghdad and that circle is steadily shrinking. You may have been satisfied to leave saddam in charge doing illegal business under the table with a few notable members of the security council, being tipped off to the schedule of inspectors, etc., but the fact is, it is getting to be a far better place than it was. Just ask any little girl who gets to learn to read.
And please, if you will, name for me some actual or proposed changes by liberals that are being well thought out and perhaps slowed down by liberals because of the potential problems that will be caused.
Hell, coyote, look at the liberal solution to healthcare. It is a blind rush to socialized medicine and damn the easily predicitable consequences.
Massive (and wasteful) military spending and corporate subsidies are very much conservative.
Military spending is necessary. You may be able to ignore the dangers in the world, and that is certainly your right. But you should be glad that conservatives maintain your right to do it.
Corporate subsidies? You mean tax breaks to corporations? That is a liberal invention Coyote. Good old governor weasley uses it heavily here to entice business into NC. Recently he brought in a computer manufacturer and when all the subsides and goodies were totaled up, the citizens of NC are going to be paying $145,000 a year (each) for 200 jobs that are going to pay about $65,000 a year.
Corporations should not be taxed at all. When you levy a tax on a corporation, they don't pay it, they simply pass the expense on to the consumer who pays the corporate tax, and the sales tax as well. As with all liberal plans, it is those who can least afford to get hurt that bear the brunt.
You have a uni-dimensional view of liberalism and conservatism. Spending and the size of government alone aren't the only benchmarks of "conservative" and "liberal". Bush is most definately not a liberal.
Liberalism requires large, intrusive government. And bush is a liberal. His spending on entitlements and poorly thought out educational plans identifies him as such.
We have been over this - but you never convinced me that Liberalism alone can be authoratarian and that is primarily becuase you have a very limited definition of conservative that doesn't apply in practice.
Because you wouldn't be convinced, even by overwhelming evidence. And the definition of conservative (classical liberal) and the political goals of conservativism may be found in the constitution and it did very well in practice for quite a long time. The further we get from those principles, towards modern liberalism, the worse off we will become.
I gave plenty of examples of authoritarian right-wing regimes.
That turned out to be leftist after all.
Authoritarianism is the extreme of both ideologies - in practice. I still stand by that argument. And I still don't see how your definition of conservative differs from libertarian.
Two words Coyote. Thought police. The concept is being put in practice right here in the US, right now and it was not put in practice by extremists. It was implemented and is being enforced by mainstream modern liberals.
Conservatism is about caution - conserving the status quo and a people's culture and tradition.
I won't argue very vigorously against that.
Liberalism is about expanding the status quo through change.
By destroyong people's cultures and traditions and demanding that they live a certain way as defined by government. AUTHORATARIANISM!!
There is good and bad to both: Liberalism provides the push for necessary changes - not necessarily change for changes sake;
The list of ills that came as a result of poorly thought out change is large and growing larger and more severe all the time.
Conservatism puts on the breaks - for precisely the reason's you have given. However - without the liberal push to become more inclusive through change - we would indeed be stuck forever in a status quo of such things as slavery, sweatshops and no right to vote for women.
Emotional hand wringing and nothing more coyote. Women got the right to vote long before modern liberalism ever raised its ugly head. Ditto for the end of slavery. Those changes happened under classical liberalism and the ability to send children to school as opposed to work was the result of capitalism creating an economy in which it was no longer necessary, not any idea or policy put in place by modern liberalism.
Without the conservative tendancy to put on the breaks we could lose our culture, values and history in a society of "anything goes" hedonism and ever changing rules.
Exactly what has been happening for the past 3/4 of a century and just look around you at the social ills that are a result.
Eventually - what was liberal becomes the new status quo.
And you are that much more removed from anything that resembles community and that much closer to the individual looking to government for everything and not realizing that the government simply can't provide for his needs.