question about the political spectrum?
969847
Conservative - Less gov't interferance in economy, more in social issues\n\nLiberal - opposite of Con definition\n\nLibertarian - less gov't interferance in both
1167858
I won't make a disparing comment on either party each have their pros and cons and that should be left for you to make your choice...my only advice...don't believe those who verbally attack others. In saying that do a web search for each party and on their sites they usually list their 'Mission Statement' or beliefs then compare that to what you read or can research about them taking care to use a large dose of reasoning because their are some people who would rather believe a lie than to find out the truth. Good luck...
435734
This is a pretty broad question.\n\nFirst, a basic review of the political spectrum:\n\nIn theory, you have communism on the far left and fascism on the far right. The distribution from left to right goes something like this:\n\ncommunism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, fascism\n\nwith other steps in between of course.\n\nSince socialism is associated with the left side of the political spectrum, many people confuse it with communism. Opponents of socialism tend to use both words interchangeably in order to imply that the failures of communism are present with socialism as well; in other words, to confuse people and make socialism sound bad.\n\nIn general, the farther you move to either extreme (either communism or fascism), the more centralized the government tends to become.\n\nDemocracy is represented by the central portion: liberalism and conservatism.\n\nMost European nations practice socialism to some degree or another. Some are very successful at it (e.g. Sweden), others are having more problems with it (e.g. France). In general, however, in socialist nations like France where there are social problems, the problems stem not from socialism itself but from other factors (e.g. very high numbers of immigrants, etc...).\n\nSince socialism tends to back a system where there is a back-up plan to assist those who are not flourishing in society due to lack of employment, low pay rates, etc..., then any government program that attempts to help those who are not flourishing could theoretically be called socialist. In this sense, socialism is being constrasted with a laissez-faire system in which the market is allowed to operate with complete independence. However, even those who vehemently oppose socialism have to agree that a completely free market would result in juvenile sweat shops, endentured servitude, and a lot of other activities that are not good for one segment of society or another unless there were laws in place to prevent these things.\n\nIn other words, a completely free market with no legal intervention would be a pretty ugly place. Certain laws and social programs have to be developed to keep society equitable for all. Where to draw the line is the major question. \n\nFor example: Is public education, child care, etc... something each parent should be responsible for, or should society pitch in as well? Personally, I think it's obvious that society as a whole benefits from educated children, so society as a whole should help pay for education. Think of it this way: if education was only available to the wealthy, then those who grew up uneducated would become a drain on society and crime rates would sky rocket. So you can either pay for education or pay for increased police forces; take your pick. Likewise, society benefits from assisting families with child care so parents can work. If people can't find affordable health care, they'll just stay home with their kid(s) and collect unemployment. Which is worse?
586013
THERE IS NO DIVIDE!  The VAST majority of Americans are middle-of-the-road.  They are not as deeply divided in Conservative/Liberal.  That is what the politicians say to invoke passion in citizens.  But the reality is that VERY VERY few people lean strongly one way or the other.  I am trying to remember the name of a book I read for a low-level Political Science course in college that outlines this all very well.
644078
Your in the section of Politics and Government....what other explanation do you need???
779326
In terms of political orientation, there IS no hard and fast definition of what a "liberal" is. The definition of who is "liberal" (or conservative for that matter) and for what reasons has varied throughout history, and varries from country to country, and also from person to person. It's all very subjective.
969092
Mmmm... CENTRIST POLITICAL PARTY!\n\n"For example, I'm very much opposed to abortion, but I'm a strong believer in environmental protection."\nYeah, I'm pretty much anti-abortion. Environmental protection... how far are your beliefs? Because I'm okay with some aspects of that, but I have my limits.\n\n"I'm against high taxes, but I believe in staying out of wars whenever possible."\nEh, I'll agree with your view of high taxes (and of course pork-barrel spending). I'm not an isolationist, however.\n\n"I'm an atheist, but I have no problem with public displays of religious symbols or prayer in schools."\nWell good for you! Seriously, "atheist fundamentalists" are somewhere on my Top 10 groups of people thet annoy the hell out of me, and you aren't one of them.\n\n"I think both political parties have good ideas, and I have no problem taking the best ones from each of them."\nDude, I like the way you think (well, about this anyway)! Good luck!
1023839
Couldn't the same be said about all political parties?
1106122
Silly question, no doubt from a silly, small minded liberal!
590890
Pretty close to a monarchy actually !!!The executive branch has pretty much been allowed todo whatever they please ...\nlegally or not w/o question !!  If you do question you are labeled unpatriotic or liberal !!! Well I have alot of questions ... I am tired of being looked down upon by those that were "lucky" enough to get in office. I AM A MODERATE \nREPUBLICAN and as far as I can see the present day republican party is closer to a neo-nazi party in my veiw than to the beliefs of myself and many of my peers.
996049
I have noticed this too.  I don't understand why things have grown so polarized.  I have a strong political persuasion as well (which I will not disclose) and I hate to see my favorite party insulting the other party.  It makes them look stupid.  I think that there needs to be a 3rd, more moderate party thrown into the mix to get these two sides to get along.
1029401
If you want to provide him with a "broader point of view" why did you limit the choices to Democrats and Republicans?  Here's wha tI would tell the kid:  Most people want the same things, but some have different priorities.  A Green is someone who is willing to work hard for really clean air and water.  A Libertarian  is someone is who is willing to work hard to let everyone reach their full potential.  A Republican is someone who is willing to work hard to catch bad people.  A Democrat is someone who is willing to work hard to help the poor.  Those are short answers, but hopefully you get the idea.  I'd recommend having him read each party's platform.
938275
I personally look at the issues that are important to me, and try to vote for the person who best represents my views. I consider myself a moderate with liberal leanings. \n\nI don't like extremism, and I don't like it when people get locked into a position and refuse to consider all sides of an issue (not a big Bush fan . . .)
181740
political????\n oil,relgeion, bush
532495
Moderates from all groups sound a lot alike, but it is where, when and how they want to spend money for their aims that make a difference.  They also differ on how and who to collect it from.  \n\nOpen minded people with the ability to compromise are an endangered species.
361387
There are a few close races, but frankly, all indicators point to the status quo (which means a Republican majority).  The caveat here is that between now and November is a political eternity...anything can happen.  I can provide links if you like.
754242
After thinking many years about my ideas about liberal and conservative politics. I have come to define liberal politics as those that liberate the many from a power structure that concentrates the wealth of the global culture into the hands of a mercenary, plutocratic, predatory few. I have come to define conservative politics as those that conserve a power structure that concentrates the wealth of the many of our global culture into the hands of a mercenary, plutocratic, predatory few.\n\nWhy should I expect to win a "war on terror" by creating terror in war? Why should I expect to win a war on terror by giving all my gold to a mercenary plutocratic predatory few when it is a mercenary plutocratic predatory few that profit from the demand for protection created by terrorist activity? Terrorist activity creates demand in the market place for the protection services offered by a mercenary plutocratic predatory few. I think, believe and expect a more rational approach to winning the war on terror would be to redistribute of the wealth of the global culture by taking wealth from a mercenary plutocratic predatory few and giving wealth to the many. This would have the dual effect of diminishing the profits derived by a mercenary plutocratic predatory few from operating a global shakedown of epic proportions that some call a war on terror; and enabling the many to protect themselves from terrorist attack as individuals by using wealth acquired through redistribution .