OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
Simply voting for conservative politicians won't necessarily lower divorce rates, teen pregnancy rates, etc. Likewise, voting for liberal candidates won't necessarily raise the rates. I think the issue is much more complicated than liberal vs. conservative politics. Income, education, culture...there are many things that can influence a person's decisions and many factors that might explain divorce rates.
Political office gives you power, but in western liberal democracies, government power is limited. Especially in the U.S. So (primarily leftist) movements that want to effect widespread changes in society learned long ago that seeking government power is a limited and ineffective way to acheive that goal. This is why you don't see strictly feminist, anti racist or anti capitalist political parties in the west. It's surprising to me that Green parties exist.
THAT my friends is conservatism's great weakness. That's why after eight years of Reagan, four of Bush senior, the Gingrich congress and now W, the above trends still continue unabated. Conservatives still see the ballot box as the primary vehicle for social change.
The left seeks to change society by influencing the culture. This is why they'd rather go on strike, hold demonstrations, produce works of art and entertainment that reflect their worldview, teach their ideas in colleges and universities or bring their grievances before the courts rather than run for office.
The right, conversely, seeks money and power. Thus they run for office and use their positions once there to shore up their political and financial interests. The right does have a cultural agenda, but try to implement it from public office. It tends to involve government telling people what they can and can't say or do. It's very difficult to do without appearing dictatorial, censorious and fascistic, which is precisely how the social conservatives usually end up coming across.
Political office gives you power, but in western liberal democracies, government power is limited. Especially in the U.S. So (primarily leftist) movements that want to effect widespread changes in society learned long ago that seeking government power is a limited and ineffective way to acheive that goal. This is why you don't see strictly feminist, anti racist or anti capitalist political parties in the west. It's surprising to me that Green parties exist.
THAT my friends is conservatism's great weakness. That's why after eight years of Reagan, four of Bush senior, the Gingrich congress and now W, the above trends still continue unabated. Conservatives still see the ballot box as the primary vehicle for social change.
The left seeks to change society by influencing the culture. This is why they'd rather go on strike, hold demonstrations, produce works of art and entertainment that reflect their worldview, teach their ideas in colleges and universities or bring their grievances before the courts rather than run for office.
The right, conversely, seeks money and power. Thus they run for office and use their positions once there to shore up their political and financial interests. The right does have a cultural agenda, but try to implement it from public office. It tends to involve government telling people what they can and can't say or do. It's very difficult to do without appearing dictatorial, censorious and fascistic, which is precisely how the social conservatives usually end up coming across.
