Ideological Flaw?

Ok, so I was thinking about something this morning and my mind wandered onto the subject of illegal immigration. It occurred to me that in a sense it is strange since most conservatives that want to corral all the illegals up and banish them are also staunch advocates of a hands off of business government. Isn't this somewhat against the aspirations of the pro corporate/anti union Republican party? I mean what better way to bust unions than to have a bunch of people in the U.S. willing to work for pennies on the dollar? You wouldn't have to move jobs overseas, you could do it right here. By the same token, the liberals seem to advocate for leniency, but again doesn't the import of cheap help undermine their union deathgrip on the U.S. by importing people that have no interest whatsoever in joining a union? Seems like both sides of the argument are more or less on the wrong side of the argument to support their agenda.

evillepaintball wrote: The difference is that Democrats want people to have the right to unionize, if they wish.  Whereas Republicans want no one to be able to unionize ever.  Democrats believe people should have a choice, if they don't want to do it, they don't have to.  Republicans don't want people to have any choice.

True, but again, it still is against each others interests. Having an open door policy which seems to be what liberal/Democrats want allows for the influx of cheap non-unionized labor, which is what you think conservatives/Republicans would want. Why spend the money outsourcing to India when you can hire cheap non-union workers here?

You're first assumption that any political party has a thought-out and logical ideology. William F. Buckley could have told you what "conservative" meant, but lately the door has been open for every looney you can think of, and the louder the better. I'm convinced that with "true conservatives" having a major problem with any viable candidate or hint of moderation, that the bet way to win the Republican nomination would be to vow to bring about prophecy by starting a nuclear war, thus bringing back Jesus. It's the only way to trump putting prayer back in public school, kicking out all the Catholic Mexicans, and banning abortion and/or birth control. What true conservative could possibly promise better than making the kingdom of God a reality by sweet cleansing holy nuclear fire, which was given specifically to the United States by Jaysus and then stolen by commies, the French, Jews, and now worst of all Muslins? I mean, there was a Blizzard in October, God is obviously upset we haven't nuked anybody since 1945.

Which part?

evillepaintball wrote: Democrats believe people should have a choice, if they don't want to do it, they don't have to.  Republicans don't want people to have any choice.

This could apply to abortion to.

You're missing the idea that political ideology is extremely illogical, Catliks listen to a guy with  funny hat so they aren't real 'Muricuns. Honestly, the conservative party (which has been many different parties throughout the history of the nation) is doing an overhaul. You have social conservative evangelicals trying to form a party with Ayn Rand type free-market believers. All are gasping at some vague idea of what it means to be conservative and many have no desire to even understand the underpinnings of their respective ideologies. Rand abhorred businesses using political clout to gain favoritism, the conservative movement craps on Solyndra but likes corporations being considered individuals by the US Supreme court and hates campaign finance reform. Political parties are at best a conglomeration of special interests and factions who are more united by what they oppose than what they believe in.

Adam Smith was for government financial intervention when things were too expensive for business to risk investing in, like infrastructure. Modern conservatives on the far right want to privatize basic 18th Century things things like roads. Rand, Regan, T.R. Jefferson and many others would have major problems with what the modern conservative movement seems to want. Jefferson was theoretically anti-centralization of Gov't power, but pro-public education. The far right would prefer defunding public education in favor of private schooling with the possibility of gov't mandates. Few politicians make sense on an ideological level. Extreme liberals want to tell you not to eat animals, drive a pickup, or own a gun, or kill a convicted violent felon, extreme conservative don't want you to use drugs, practice birth control or abortion, and many think the Constitution does not apply to non-Christians or immigrants.

What we have here is the liberal ideologies of the 17th and 18th centuries enshrined (selectively) as conservative tenants by people who also enshrine -5th century social ideas. Many of our social conservative ideas are actually extremely eastern in philosophy. They put the group ahead of the individual. That's why reproduction is encouraged and things like gayness are discouraged.  They are not in line with continuing the dominant culture, while they are influenced by classical Western thinkers in terms of valuing individuals. Liberals have similar ideological problems. They like the idea of the collective good being the highest good and face the same problem as Eastern thought, basically thinking they have everything figured out already.

I'm convinced that the vast majority of people have never really looked at the thinkers who've inspired their ideology in depth and in context, and are fine with relying on Glenn Beck and Ariana Huffington to tell them what their ideology is. The best they can do is to pick a side that will screw with their personal life less if they were to get their way and stick to it to the extent that the group doesn't alienate them. That's the reason why we see Libertarians looking like they're going to make a break from the mainstream conservatives.

oldpbnoob wrote: most conservatives that want to corral all the illegals up and banish them are also staunch advocates of a hands off of business government.

And the King of Hypocrites chimes in with the usual, tired selective morality crapola.

FreeEnterprise wrote: generalizations are just that...   I don't think that illegals should be deported... I do think they should put up a fence, as terrorists are walking into the country now. But, that is a different issue than illegals. I agree.  Everyone knows that terrorists' one and only weakness is an unmanned fence.   I think this country should allow people to come here if they think it would be better for them or their family.   I also think that killing someone because you "chose" to, isn't a logical moral choice. If death of a human is the result of your choice, then clearly that shouldn't be legal (and yet it is... now I see why the concentration camps were "acceptable" if you were living in Germany, again the product of relative morality).   In before fetus =person debate   No wonder Tim Tebow is so persecuted, he did the unpardonable and admitted that if his mother hadn't had strong moral character, he would have been aborted... Drawing back the curtain on the horror of abortion and the fact that afterwords a life is gone... Well, in his case, the "aborted" has a voice, and a pretty strong voice at that.   If all our athletes had character like him, imagine the good they could do for the world.   But, instead people attack him for his beliefs, and for *gasp* being alive... When society said he could have been aborted. Fixed.

Oh and virtual fences in the remote areas would be fine, with all those nifty drones we are using to spy on and arrest our citizens now...

Edited by FreeEnterprise - 15 December 2011 at 12:20pm