There is such a diagnosis as temporary insanity
Yeah, I suppose we all suffer from that condition from time to time. Like when we elect "scary" progressives.
Pacifism.
Is pacisfism actually a foreign policy? It seems more a state of mind. Certainly, nations that we consider hard left
such as the Soviet Union, et al were not pacifist.
Amnesty.
If amnesty is a hard left policy on immigration, then your saying that all those Republicans that you keep referring to in order to justify Obama are hard left even though you say they are not lefties.
Not if it's seen to conflict with existing Federal law or Constitution.
It doesn't conflict with the Constitution. Various existing Federal laws do.
You'd have to define "even higher" but the real lefties would like taxes to be really, really high. Much higher than Obama who is still lower than Reagan.
"Even higher" tax rates than the already higher rates on the rich are defined as raising the existing rates the rich pay which are higher than the rates the non-rich pay. In the world of the possible, that is the "vector" as you put it in the direction of really high that "real lefties" want to go.
This is an economics question dependent on the situation. Taxes can't always be lowered or we have no revenue.
I asked about raising taxes, not lowering them. I certainly did not say there should be no revenue. You do, in spite of your moderate centrism, go to extremes.
Depends if that's an attitude or description. Even most flat tax proposals by staunch conservatives spread the wealth.
If we are already spreading the wealth, if all tax systems spread the wealth, then it becomes a question of how much spreading is going on. When the spreading becomes a burden on wealth production, it is self-defeating. More often, individuals know how much of their wealth to spread and still remain productive, and to the degree of comfort that is desired, rather than government officials spreading other peoples wealth beyond the minimum of necessity to scary bounds in order to get votes. When it becomes government objective to spread the wealth of others, when that is seen as a role of government, rather than imposing taxes as necessary and proper to fulfill its Constitutional mandates, I think that is entering the domain of the hard left.
I've never heard anyone say the Constitution is "lacking" unless you mean an activist attitude.
Obama didn't use the exact word "lacking" but said as much when he lamented that the Constitutioin did not say what government could do for the people.
The republicans leading the conservative revival all cite Reagan as their model yet by many measures Reagan was acting like a lefty as well. Have we ever had a true conservative leader? Perhaps Ike?
Models are not perfect. They can be a "vector" in the right direction. Most "conservatives" sorrow over Reagan's leftist misteps.
Radicalism isn't a relative condition, it's quite tangible. See your post on insanity above
It is a relative condition when it is used by relativists. Those conservatives you anonymously cite as being radical are actually espousing adherence to the Constitution. If the Constitution is our true center, our foundation as a nation, divergence from the Constitution is radical, not adherence to it. The relativists want to establish the current radical status quo as the center. They have turned our system of governance upside down--top down instead of bottom up.
I don't think increasing the debt is a "liberal" condition as much as an "irresponsible" condition.
Both Carter and Reagan are responsible for large defense programs that created our first large federal debt. National Defense is Constitutional so was this action liberal or conservative? If taxes are raised to pay down debts incurred by Constitutionally mandated services in an effort to balance the budget is that a conservative or liberal action?
It wasn't the Constitutional taxes for national defense that contributed to the debt. It was the existing and then expanding unconstutional programs that required more debt. Can politicians spend too much on what they are Constitutionally allowed? Of course. That's one of the reasons for elections. But when programs and agencies are created for which the electorate has no say or recourse, the Constitution can "vector" towards moot.
And the predictable response that...if the federal government stuck to within its Constitutional yada yada yada is a cop out answer. There are no mulligans, we have to solve problems with the situation as it exists right now.
It is not a cop out to revert to what works. The cop out is to say the Constitution is yada yada yada with respect to our current situation when it was disregard of the Constitution that got us in this current situation. And it is worse than copping out to pile on more of the same crap that got us here--as you say, it is irresponsible. But responsibililty lays at the foot of Constitutional governance. Otherwise it is governance at the whim of the moment, by untried theory. And yes, it will take time to revert to our center. But the longer we wait to change the "vector" in that direction, the longer will take, if ever.
As I said above, because I think people are looking more for responsible government rather than a big ideological change.
Constitutional government is not ideological change. The ideological change has occured in distancing ourselves from the Constitution. Responsible government would be Constitutional governement. Government by whim of the moment is not responsible.
Re-education? You're starting to sound like one of Thomas Sowell's "intellectuals"
Thomas Sowell's intellectuals would not subscribe to re-educating the ignorant on the fundamentals of the Constitution.
I think the one positive element of the current debate is that people are more aware to the idea that the elected leaders don't act in a very responsible manner, with the growth trajectory of the Federal Debt the past few decades as the leading symptom.
And how, other than following the Constitution, do you see the Federal Government acting responsibly.
I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.
-spence