Fox News Declares WBC...

[Rapscallion]

Does being religious or homophobic automatically make you conservative?

Socially, yes. Fiscally, not relevant.

Rapscallion

[Anthony K. S.]

Does being religious or homophobic automatically make you conservative?

In the same sense that being pro-life would make you conservative, yes.

When I was in college, I had a friend who was very strongly pro-life. However, she was also a devoted Democrat, and held liberal views on most other issues.

I would consider her "primarily liberal, but conservative on the issue of abortion."

However, if abortion had been the only issue that she ever publicly spoke of or did any advocacy work on, then it could be argued that, for all practical purposes, she should simply be viewed as "conservative."

Her liberal views would matter to nobody but herself, if the only position she publicly acted on was a conservative one. She would, essentially, be on the "right wing" side of the public forum.

Now, as far as Fred Phelps goes ...

Opposing gay rights is a conservative position.

There are varying degrees of it, of course. Not all conservatives agree on just what rights gays should have, or how gay people should be treated.

For that matter, there are some people who identify themselves as "conservative" but actually fully support gay rights. I would argue that that would actually make them "primarily conservative, but liberal on the issue of gay rights," but that's a matter of semantics.

People like Fred Phelps fall on the extreme end of the ideological spectrum as far as homosexuality goes.

As I said earlier, it might be better to refer to him as an "extremist," to set him apart from more moderate, mainstream conservatives who probably don't want to be associated with him. But he is, in fact, a conservative, at least on this issue.

I don't know what Phelps's views on other issues are, but in my view, it doesn't really matter.

Even if he did hold liberal views on other subjects, the only one that his group ever publicly acts on is homosexuality, and that puts him squarely on the extreme right-wing end of the public forum.

[HYHYBT]

Socially, yes. Fiscally, not relevant.

Rapscallion

Not necessarily. I'm religious, but neither homophobic nor socially conservative (in most senses of the phrase, at least.)

[mikoyan29]

I remember there was a political theory that the spectrum should instead be a clock, when you get far enough to the left, you start sounding the like the right and vice versa. Then there is the other floating around that authoritarianism and the other should be on separate axes. As there are authoritarian leftist and rightests.

[Rapscallion]

Not necessarily. I'm religious, but neither homophobic nor socially conservative (in most senses of the phrase, at least.)

I'm not sure that religion is strictly necessary in this case. I think without the excuse of religion that fuckwit and his clan would be anti-gay. Just because someone has religious affiliation doesn't mean that they're socially conservative. There are several people I know of whom I have a great deal of respect for what they do in spite of their religious beliefs.

Rapscallion

[wolfie]

"conservative bikers"
I'm not familiar with the biker groups back east, but at least out west, biker groups don't have political policies and are made up with diverse groups of people who all happen to enjoy motorcycling.

Not a biker, but from what I've read, there's one political issue that biker groups take a stand on - they want helmet laws abolished. As a libertarian position, that would fall toward the right side of the spectrum.

[Nekojin]

Not a biker, but from what I've read, there's one political issue that biker groups take a stand on - they want helmet laws abolished. As a libertarian position, that would fall toward the right side of the spectrum.

That's not correct. Libertarian and Right aren't synonymous. They're often lumped into the same camp because of the way our political system is designed, but they're not the same thing at all.

Observe the Political Compass:


(Let's please not get into an argument about whether the site's placement of the pols is correct, OK?)

Main-line Republicans aren't particularly "Libertarian." Some of them call themselves Libertarian because they believe in fiscal libertarianism, but they're not actually libertarian because they oppose social liberties, such as gay marriage, abortion, and so on - they seek to control decision-making at a state or federal level, rather than a personal level.

[mikoyan29]

There could probably be another axis for financial stuff......

[Andara Bledin]

Left vs Right is financial stuff.

^-.-^

[mikoyan29]

Left vs Right is financial stuff.

^-.-^

Or social stuff...

[Nekojin]

"Libertarian" vs "Authoritarian" is a matter of scope and purpose than strictly business or social. Libertarian-leaning individuals want less government control over matters where the government isn't needed. Authoritarian-leaning individuals want more government control over matters where they deem it "important enough."

When a problem arises that isn't swiftly and simply handled between the parties involved, a libertarian (small-L) wants to let people sort out the problem on their own, or let the individuals proceed as they see fit, provided they're not harming others. An authoritarian wants someone in a higher statea of power/authority to decide the matter unilaterally.

[Hyena Dandy]

When a problem arises that isn't swiftly and simply handled between the parties involved, a libertarian (small-L) wants to let people sort out the problem on their own, or let the individuals proceed as they see fit, provided they're not harming others. An authoritarian wants someone in a higher statea of power/authority to decide the matter unilaterally.

I think defining it that way, you'll find a lot more libertarians than people who would agree with libertarian political philosophy. I've found most people want people to do as they wish as long as they don't hurt anyone. The difference is usually found in what they define as something people handle without hurting anyone.

[Nekojin]

I think defining it that way, you'll find a lot more libertarians than people who would agree with libertarian political philosophy. I've found most people want people to do as they wish as long as they don't hurt anyone. The difference is usually found in what they define as something people handle without hurting anyone.

Well, there's also a significant difference between small-L and big-L libertarians. Big-L Libertarians are members (and especially politicians) belonging to the Libertarian Party. Some Libertarians subscribe to the minimalist libertarian principles (no government except where unavoidable), but most are only libertarian-minded when it comes to fiscal policy, and either indifferent or openly accepting of authoritarian social policies.

There, too, is the problem that a lot of libertarians (both little L and big) seem to think that indirect harm is okay - if Joe goes bankrupt because his mortgage's rate changed (thanks to small print allowing the bank to do so), it's only Joe's fault because he should have read the fine print and gone with a lender that wouldn't have done that to him. Never mind that doing so is severely time-intensive (reading legal documents like mortgages can take hours), and Joe probably doesn't have the legal background necessary to muddle through all of the obfuscating text that hides what they're doing...

I've even argued (once) with a self-proclaimed libertarian who believed that anything, even outright fraud, is A-OK, because the market will realize that he's a fraudster and stop dealing with him.

I call myself a libertarian, personally, but I'm really only a social libertarian - corporations have no consciences, and truly abominable things can be done in the name of a corporation resulting in the actual guilty party (or parties) being able to hide behind the "shield" of the corporation. They need to be regulated to prevent that sort of scheisse.