Link to original post: [drupal=2579]thequestion on Politics: Argument Starter[/drupal]
Okay, here's a good one:
The difference between liberals and conservatives is how they try to solve problems:
The conservatives say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broken, then conservatives say that you should let the free market solve it. This means that if a conservative finds a log in the middle of the road, he will either start a company that removes logs from roads, or wait for a company that removes logs from roads to remove the log from the road.
Liberals, on the other hand, have an entirely different way of fixing things: if it ain't broke, they say, we need the government to fix it until it is, and then blame the people who were running it just fine before the government stepped in for ruining it. This means that if a liberal finds a log in the middle of the road, he will demand that the government start a new log-removal division that removes logs from roads, and make a new people-who-leave-logs-in-the-middle-of-the-road tax to pay for it. And then he will blame a logging company on the other side of the continent for letting logs fall in the middle of the road.
haha ok, well this isn't a good argument, so if you're going to start a trend w/these you first want to review what makes a good argument. In this case you made a seemingly valid point about conservatives, then the counter argument was a juvenile insult >< can't argue then.
SO let's re-say what you're trying to say and maybe we'll get a proper argumentative out of it:
The Conservative believes the axiom "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Additionally the Conservative will rely on The People to fix anything that does break.
The Liberal does not believe the axiom "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Additionally the Liberal relies on The Government to fix anything that breaks or is breaking.
Now you can argue these two points, but... I wouldn't recommend it.
A Conservative no longer remains static on the spectrum here in America, let alone the world (thanks Teran for complicating this
) A Liberal is also just as wide spread over the spectrum, though more closely aligned with Liberalism as accepted globally, the point remains that American Liberals are still more conservative than others around the world.
So before we even quantify the argument, we have to quantify the points in your thesis.
Conservatives that don't actively seek ways to improve what seems to be working, and who expect Capitalism to overcome any obstacle, are Regan-era Conservatives, whose ideology date back to post WWII America, and have been slowly dieing out, literally as time marches on, and as the newer generations of America fail to follow suit. They are now "Neo-conservatives."
Liberals in America are the progeny of change-based movements dating back to the Vietnam War era, and ending with the Clinton Administration.
THIS decade, this century, America is defined by a very different mind set in play. It saw the end of the 20th Century Renaissance with the Terror Attack of 9/11, and has now come full circle with the election of Barack Obama in favor of "Neo-Conservatism" along with the founding of other splinter factions such as Progressives (republicans and democrats, both far left/right) and Centrists who are quickly coming up, who basically look at both sides and try to compromise, because they can see the issue from both sides and would rather sacrifice a total compromise for one that holds true enough for both views (i.e. abortion: far right pro life, far left pro choice, centrist, pro choice except in logical circumstances like ****, incest, death).
OK so now that's out of the way, lets examine the broke -not- broke element to this.
A Neo-Conservative does believe most economic problems will solve themselves so long as Americans go to work and pay their taxes. A Liberal does believe that most economic problems will be solved so long as The Government helps while able Americans go to work and pay their taxes.
Using your Log analogy...
The neo-conservative sees a forest is decaying. Logs are spilling out into the road. There is a chance here, to strengthen the economy and make good investment choices for future forest repair needs. A bill is passed and cleanup begins. A private contractor is hired to do the work, because they are experts, and offered the lowest amount of tax-based compensation... the bidding process.
A liberal sees this same forest. There is a chance here, to put people to work, and to help the environment. A bill is not necessary. A letter request is made to the Office of the President, Dept of Interior, and Dept of Transportation. A plan is made to build a new road, around the forest, while the forest itself will be studied to ensure it can be salvaged. If so, it will make a great national forest. If not, it will be rezoned for commercial or residential use.
Though the liberal's idea costs more tax dollars, the solution is far more in depth as it takes into account the immediate problem, and the future.
The conservative's idea costs far less tax dollars, and does add to the economy, creating jobs, wages, and more tax revenue as well as a perpetual need, since the forest will remain as it is, and now other forests like this can be handled in a similar, cost-effective, economy-boosting manner.
"Is the dark side stronger?"
"No! No. Quicker, more aggressive..."
I leave that ultimate ? to you, but now you see how both Liberals and Conservatives would approach the issue from different angles, and neither would in the here and now be wrong, but for future purposes one leads down a path of necessity (forests to keep falling apart) and the other leading down a path of solution.
