Right Wing Ideas that have Moved America Forward?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Define "forward"....
The GOP in Florida repealed motorcycle helmet laws. That's "forward" IMO.
The GOP in Florida repealed motorcycle helmet laws. That's "forward" IMO.
it's a trick question, any government at all be it left or right, moves America backwards. the most important right wing idea of all is to abolish fed government, and not have a central government in DC, but this has not happened yet, so it's a trick question. the very right wing idea of having several separate states in the beginning was key.
Following the constitution and the rule of law. In other words, the very fabric of America is dependent on conservative steadfast devotion to what made this country so incredibly successful in the first place.Saw this on Facebook. I figured HROT could help me answer the question.
Last edited:
Democrats have controlled all three branches of government 11 times since 1945. Republicans 3 times. If you don't like what has happened to the country, look to the party in total control 11 times vs, the one in control just 3 times in the last 60 years.
If you aren't bursting with pride at the direction America has taken since 1945 you are insane and a commie and should move to China.
Key point here. Forward doesn't necessarily mean better.
It was the two years of the Reagan Administration with control that we saved the country ( temporarily anyway ) from the Democrats. It's been downhill ever since.
Or we can just stay here and try to stop people like you from turning us into another China.
yes, I'm elated that everyone is in jail and detroit has crumbled and everyone is in debt and we are all sick and fat stupid
You mean ronnie's massive budget run ups?
It is amazing how many years of damage he has been able to do with just those two years.
Saw this on Facebook. I figured HROT could help me answer the question.
How about the emancipation proclamation?
That was a liberal idea. You cons were busy trying to hold onto your "property" and complaining the state was trying to rob you. Nominate another Lincoln, I dare you.
So Lincoln was a liberal? Conservatives believe in a color blind society, liberals still advocate racism.
China started by taking a lot of manufacturing jobs and will get to you service type people soon.
There are a bunch of things ... however,
The whole notion of self-funded retirement funds via IRA's and 401(k)'s might be one of the more obvious.
The money you are going to live on in retirement is actually there. So, there is that.
The whole notion of self-funded retirement funds via IRA's and 401(k)'s might be one of the more obvious.
The money you are going to live on in retirement is actually there. So, there is that.
Reagan's debt to GDP ratio was 35 - 40%, under Obama 100 - 105%.There is good debt and bad debt. Good debt finances jobs, infrastructure and defense. Obama debt finances ( temporarily ) union pensions, extended welfare, green energy boondoggles, GM bail outs. Reagan's debt pulled us out of Carter's nightmare of 10% unemployment,16% inflation and 20% interest rates. STAGFLATION, GRAIN EMBARGO, IRAN HOSTAGES, BANKRUPTCY,FARM CRISIS and OLYMPIC BOYCOTT -the Carter Legacy.
The interstate highway system. It was a national defense and commerce measure two places that the right likes to invest money in and constantly tries to improve.
However for the most part if you are looking for a lot of big ideas coming from the right then you are missing the point entirely.
That isn't the point of being right wing.
Being right wing/conservative is generally a ideology that says we are fine how we are now or how we where in the recent past and we don't need to change anything. It's a "If it ain't broke don't fix it" sort of ideology. It isn't about moving things forward so much as it's about preventing damage. Staying the course leads to the best results in their opinion. They might tweak some things but they don't want to make radical changes. Anything radical they want to do it's to improve commerce or national defense.
Left wing ideologies are the opposite. They don't believe things are fine, they want to change them in ways that they personally believe will make things better. So they are much more likely to change things. But while some things change things for the better, others change things for the worse.
If I had to be critical of both it would be that the right wing often doesn't see obvious problems until it's too late and then by the the time they come about to admitting something is a problem that no one in their right mind trusts them to be a part of the solution. And even when they do FINALLY admit there is a problem they plan to fix a big problem with extremely minor changes that are so small as to be almost ineffective. A good example of this is healthcare. A lot of people would like several things about the ACA fixed. . . but no one who doesn't already want to go back to the old system (which is a minority of people) trusts the right wing to fix these problems.
The left however see's problems everywhere, sometimes based on flimsy evidence, especially if it impacts one of their pre-selected "victim groups". And they are ready and willing to make massive changes that sometimes do a great amount of damage and injustice in order to try and fix either a massively overstated problem or a non existent problem. A good example of this is GMO's. There doesn't seem to be any good evidence that they are in any way harmful, but it doesn't take solid evidence to convince left wingers that there is a problem that has to be fixed NOW.
One side it's impossible to convince them there is ever a problem with anything while the other is willing change everything often hurting a lot of people to stop problems that don't exist or are massively overstated.
You can see both with BLM.
One side is convinced there are no systematic problems with how the law treats minorities especially African Americans despite the fact that African Americans are demonstrably given longer sentences for the same crimes.
The other side is convinced that cops just go to work every day hoping they get the chance to shoot a black person. Which is of course a massive overstatement of a real problem which creates greater distrust between the police and the black community. While they are able to detect a real problem they overstate it and react in such a way as to make the problem worse and not better.
However for the most part if you are looking for a lot of big ideas coming from the right then you are missing the point entirely.
That isn't the point of being right wing.
Being right wing/conservative is generally a ideology that says we are fine how we are now or how we where in the recent past and we don't need to change anything. It's a "If it ain't broke don't fix it" sort of ideology. It isn't about moving things forward so much as it's about preventing damage. Staying the course leads to the best results in their opinion. They might tweak some things but they don't want to make radical changes. Anything radical they want to do it's to improve commerce or national defense.
Left wing ideologies are the opposite. They don't believe things are fine, they want to change them in ways that they personally believe will make things better. So they are much more likely to change things. But while some things change things for the better, others change things for the worse.
If I had to be critical of both it would be that the right wing often doesn't see obvious problems until it's too late and then by the the time they come about to admitting something is a problem that no one in their right mind trusts them to be a part of the solution. And even when they do FINALLY admit there is a problem they plan to fix a big problem with extremely minor changes that are so small as to be almost ineffective. A good example of this is healthcare. A lot of people would like several things about the ACA fixed. . . but no one who doesn't already want to go back to the old system (which is a minority of people) trusts the right wing to fix these problems.
The left however see's problems everywhere, sometimes based on flimsy evidence, especially if it impacts one of their pre-selected "victim groups". And they are ready and willing to make massive changes that sometimes do a great amount of damage and injustice in order to try and fix either a massively overstated problem or a non existent problem. A good example of this is GMO's. There doesn't seem to be any good evidence that they are in any way harmful, but it doesn't take solid evidence to convince left wingers that there is a problem that has to be fixed NOW.
One side it's impossible to convince them there is ever a problem with anything while the other is willing change everything often hurting a lot of people to stop problems that don't exist or are massively overstated.
You can see both with BLM.
One side is convinced there are no systematic problems with how the law treats minorities especially African Americans despite the fact that African Americans are demonstrably given longer sentences for the same crimes.
The other side is convinced that cops just go to work every day hoping they get the chance to shoot a black person. Which is of course a massive overstatement of a real problem which creates greater distrust between the police and the black community. While they are able to detect a real problem they overstate it and react in such a way as to make the problem worse and not better.
Last edited:
The greatest accomplishment of the "right wing" has been preventing liberal utopianism from destroying mankind.
Other worthy "right wing" ideas: capitalism, nationalism, property ownership, patents/trademarks . . .the polka . . .
Other worthy "right wing" ideas: capitalism, nationalism, property ownership, patents/trademarks . . .the polka . . .
I'll use the game of football as an analogy to America. The rules of football are the constitution. It's the basic concept of the game that has allowed for this sport to be the best and most popular sport in America. Same with the constitution. Conservatives underatand you must preserve those rules and remain devoted to keeping the basic framework in tact. Liberals come along and make tweaks like creating the west coast offense. They then think they have recreated liberty and break their arms congratulating themselves. But the truth is it was the underlying/original rules of football that were the key to any success or advancement. But for the original rules - and.a steadfast adherence to them - there would be no possibility of any advancement in the first place.
Gridlock only makes sense if the current rules are the ones you like, or if you fear the rules that will emerge absent gridlock will be worse than those in place now.
Since the Great Deregulation and Great Tax Cuts for the Rich of the last several administrations, the plutocrats, oligarchs, big corporations, Big Money, Big Oil and Big Pharma and such have the rules stacked very strongly in their favor.
Sure, they'd like to be able to concentrate wealth and power even faster. So they will back the politicians who will do that. But if nothing gets done, they are pretty happy with the way things are.
Then the filthy liberals try to make rules to prevent helmet to helmet hits that cause brain damage. The conservatives are mad that the manliness of the game is at risk and want to continue the tradition of brain damage despite the concerns and will of the players union. The libertarians then come in and announce they are libertarians because that is what they do, and proclaim that helmets are the actual cause of the head to head hits and need to be removed from the game.
What's the definition of "forward"? Are college safe spaces a step forward? Are mandatory sentences for violent crimes "forward" or "backwards"?
Has Cologne Germany gone "forward" by letting in refugee rapists?
Has Cologne Germany gone "forward" by letting in refugee rapists?
Correct.
The purpose of government is not to make new laws a at high rate of speed.
Most new laws are intended to counter old ones that screwed something up in the first place.
It is all about perspective. The rapists would argue one way, and rape victims another.
I don't think I would complain if I was a victim. I'd take Cialis just to make sure I was evaluating the situation properly. Of course, there are different potential circumstances eg.: If anything entered me . . . I'm playing the Lady GaGa song the rest of my life.
Hoosier, that was a very good post (the long one) and in general you're spot on.
One area I'd differ is "climate change". I think most people on the right understand there is something going on, but aren't sure what to do about it. Slapping regulations on United States companies may or may not be the answer. There are always unintended consequences of government action.
My point is one cannot confuse "action" with "productivity" and similarly, one cannot confuse "inaction" with "non-productivity".
One area I'd differ is "climate change". I think most people on the right understand there is something going on, but aren't sure what to do about it. Slapping regulations on United States companies may or may not be the answer. There are always unintended consequences of government action.
My point is one cannot confuse "action" with "productivity" and similarly, one cannot confuse "inaction" with "non-productivity".
Similar threads
