Difference between revisions of "Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?"
m (cat) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I view myself as a conservative: supporting a small, minimal government, one large enough to have courts, roads and a military. I value a commitment to a small government that is not intrusive over most other things. I view Ayn Rand, despite her atheism and shrill denunciation (in the same style as Stalin of her homeland) of the conservative movement as a valuable voice in defining economic conservatism. However, it seems that what is more valued is social conservatism here at CP. It feels that people feel that it's more important to have social conservative views than economic ones. As someone who falls closer to the middle on social issues (I really don't care what people do in the bedrooms as long as I don't have to hear about it), I've been wondering if CP is the place for me. So, is Conservapedia's focus on social or economic conservatism? Or is there room here for both of us? [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 07:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT) | I view myself as a conservative: supporting a small, minimal government, one large enough to have courts, roads and a military. I value a commitment to a small government that is not intrusive over most other things. I view Ayn Rand, despite her atheism and shrill denunciation (in the same style as Stalin of her homeland) of the conservative movement as a valuable voice in defining economic conservatism. However, it seems that what is more valued is social conservatism here at CP. It feels that people feel that it's more important to have social conservative views than economic ones. As someone who falls closer to the middle on social issues (I really don't care what people do in the bedrooms as long as I don't have to hear about it), I've been wondering if CP is the place for me. So, is Conservapedia's focus on social or economic conservatism? Or is there room here for both of us? [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 07:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]] | [[Category:Conservapedia Debates]] | ||
| + | :Social conservatism is a way of restricting freedom, which this site seems to vehemently oppose. Economic conservatism is reasonable during times of expansion, but as the aftermath of the [[Great Depression]] proved, the best way to get out of a hole is to fill it with money. That's my two cents. [[User:AlanR|AlanR]] 08:26, 28 February 2010 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 13:26, February 28, 2010
This came up in the talk page over conservative novels. I view myself as a conservative: supporting a small, minimal government, one large enough to have courts, roads and a military. I value a commitment to a small government that is not intrusive over most other things. I view Ayn Rand, despite her atheism and shrill denunciation (in the same style as Stalin of her homeland) of the conservative movement as a valuable voice in defining economic conservatism. However, it seems that what is more valued is social conservatism here at CP. It feels that people feel that it's more important to have social conservative views than economic ones. As someone who falls closer to the middle on social issues (I really don't care what people do in the bedrooms as long as I don't have to hear about it), I've been wondering if CP is the place for me. So, is Conservapedia's focus on social or economic conservatism? Or is there room here for both of us? ArnoldFriend 07:39, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
- Social conservatism is a way of restricting freedom, which this site seems to vehemently oppose. Economic conservatism is reasonable during times of expansion, but as the aftermath of the Great Depression proved, the best way to get out of a hole is to fill it with money. That's my two cents. AlanR 08:26, 28 February 2010 (EST)