 | Sundiszno (30)
05/20/2005 | I don't believe that conservatives are opposed to rapid change, but rather may be opposed to change just for the sake of change (or the appearance of making progress). Reagan sure made some rapid changes in foreign policy, and he didn't suffer much, if any, for it. I very much agree with Eschew's post - it very much depends on what kinds of changes we're talking about making as to whether or not we need to be quick and reactive, or need to be deliberate and thoughtful.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (61)
05/12/2005 |  I'm not sure even this is a fair statement. Conservatives generally support George Bush's anti-terror initiatives, which have been implemented with lightning quickness, in the context of our deliberative-body method of government. But, generally, any fundamental change to the way government operates needs to be pretty compelling to gain the support of conservatives. Kill 3,000 innocent Americans one morning? OK, you got our attention, let's address the issue, with gusto. Pound the table about how the hardwood forestlands are disappearing, or the ecosystem of the entire planet is about to fall apart? Well, I guess I'd be looking to see if you had some pretty compelling scientific proof on that before we throw 6% of our population out of work. You want to attack with armed FBI agents a group of religious fanatics in Waco, Texas? Why, again? Because there might (might!!) be a few innocent children being abused? No proof, but there might be? Well, I guess I'd expect you to go slow on that one. Is it so much to ask that there be some pretty convincing proof? Is my skepticism really that immoral?
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
