13 3

As a conservative or right or republican, can you state something that progressives or the left or democrats get right?

As a progressive or left or democrat, can you state something that conservatives or the right or republicans get right?

TheMiddleWay 8 Feb 19

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


It is frustrating to (watch hypocrites) shame polluters for mutating animals while at the same time, (these same hypocrites) celebrate polluters when the mutation induces unconventional hermaphodite genital shapes.

Every polluter was in love with Alex Jones when he promoted polluters but these same polluters cancelled him and took his children away when he talked about the secret of how #GayFrogs happen in nature in the first place. ( Also the " free market" is not going to fix this because you have seen how much resistance is coming from consumers who are forced to breathe clean air during a dirty air pandemic ).



Speaking as a libertarian, I'll attempt to do both, along with what I believe each would say in response to the accusation.

Progressives have the right of it when they say that conservatives do not care about the poor.

I think the conservative response to that charge would be that it isn't that conservatives don't care about the poor, but that they do not think it's the government's job to lift people out of poverty - under the theory that it is better to teach a man to fish than to provide him with fish - and that a robust economy raises the standard of living for everyone in that economy (i.e. even the poorest in the U.S are among the wealthiest in the world in terms of standard of living).

Conservatives have the right of it when they say that progressives put more stock in emotional narratives than they do facts.(1)

I think the progressive response to that is that facts in isolation do not tell the whole story. Every fact, every statistic, is someone's lived experience that does not get its story told. Because of this, conclusions drawn from facts are too often incorrect, because they lack a full understanding of the bigger picture.(2)

(1) For example, facts state that 14 unarmed black people were killed in encounters by police in over a million police encounters in 2019; even the Washington Post admits this figure. However, the progressive narrative is that police are a racist entity that is intentionally hunting and killing black people and needs to be defunded if not done away with entirely.

(2) For example, to say only 14 unarmed black people were killed - the implication that it's a statistically insignificant number - ignores the fact that there are 14 more people who didn't need to die, to add to the running total of black people that didn't need to die the previous year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and so forth. And because authorities are treating it as a statistically insignificant number, there will be more in the years that follow. Then you want to tell people - with a straight face -that the police aren't racist, when they don't see a problem with unarmed black people being killed by the police year after year and aren't planning on making any changes to resolve this?

Conservatism is not pro-rich nor anti-poor.
CONSERVATISM is: a political philosophy advocating the preservation of the best of the established order in society and opposing radical change, or simply change for its own sake.
That is what a Conservative would say.

It is important to realize that what we think of conservative or progressive is what WE think of it and does not necessarily reflect what others, or a majority, think of it.

Case in point: what an Australian defines as conservative may not, likely will not, be what an USAian defines as a conservative.

For most Americans, conservatism basically means the stuff Republicans are for, and liberalism means whatever Democrats are for. I don’t mean this as a criticism, just a statement of fact.

I'm not discounting your definition. I think it's a good one. But don't fall into the trap, especially on international social media sites, to think that your definition is universal nor that anyone that doesn't abide by it is wrong or a "CINO".

@TheMiddleWay People can choose to be wrong if they like... I choose to be correct and consistent.

Correct only to those that agree with your definition.
Not everyone agrees with your definitions however.
Which is not a deal breaker since knowing how you define things and how others do we can have a conversation.
But if you claim that your definition is the ONLY definition and don't acknowledge that there are others, no conversation can be had.

Consider that what you mean by "mate" or "barbie" in australia is not the same as what it means in the USA. If you are to insist that the australian meaning is the correct meaning, no conversations can be had when it comes to sex, friendship, dolls, or cook-outs.


Correct only to those that agree with your definition.

Ah, I see you've met @Lightman before.

LOL! Yes.

He's a good foil until he starts making things personal... which sometimes is immediately.
Then it's best to placate him by agreeing with him and move on.

He LOVES being told he is right. Try it sometime; calms him down right away.

@TheMiddleWay yawn kiddies.... ganging up again I see.... tsk tsk tsk...

You are right.


ganging up again I see.... tsk tsk tsk...

Just acknowledging who you are. Frankly, you should be thankful anyone pays attention to you.

@Alysandir You have know idea who I am... only an egotistical fool would make that remark.


If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

When someone pulls the same shenanigans - intentionally missing the point in order to argue, fixating on minor details such as how something is phrased, insulting people who have a difference of opinion (even when they actually don't) - in conversation after conversation, then it's reasonable to assume that the person is showing you who they really are.

If you want to be perceived differently, you should probably clean up your act. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

@Alysandir LOL looks who is quacking now... needlessly boringly as per usual.


And yet you keep responding, managing to fit an insult in every time, because that's all you really know how to do.

If it was your intention to show everyone reading this comment thread just how wrong about you we are, you're not doing a very effective job.

@Alysandir Yawn try looking in the mirror dopey.
Stop wasting my time


Another post where you've added nothing to the conversation except a personal insult. You must enjoy proving me correct.

Of course, a wise man would realize that - with each response - I'm giving you the opportunity to prove everyone wrong and would either do so, or remain silent, but a leopard can't change its spots, can it?

@Alysandir lol pot kettle black know what that means dopey... hypocrite...

Black people can be racist and violent too.
I hope no one is arguing against this fact.

Which just goes to show you that Biden celebrating the classy and articulate influence of Obama is not racism.

I helped Doctor Weber become a elected political candidate in La Mesa. Right after she won , a guy at a trolley station decided to stir up a riot. Toxic people can come from any race or creed. Even Satan is described as a angel of light.


lol pot kettle black know what that means dopey... hypocrite...

I have to thank the user above; I hadn't even noticed that you responded. Again, another post that says nothing and only insults. Of course the whole, "pot kettle" & "hypocrite" thing makes literally zero sense, but I've come to expect that from you.

Now, do be helpful and respond with another comment that helps my point total, would you?

@Alysandir pot kettle black...


Black people can be racist and violent too. I hope no one is arguing against this fact.

I've been dealing with a mosquito for so long on this thread that I've had to go back and re-read what it was about.

Having said that, I'm not sure I understand what your post is in response to? I don't recall where we were discussing who can or cannot be racist. Not that I would disagree with what you're saying - anyone is capable of being racist in the classic definition (not the co-opted CRT definition) - only that I don't know what you were responding to.


pot kettle black...

Boop bop beep.

So long as we're just throwing out random words now.

@Alysandir yawn.... go away little boy


Go away? You came to my comment thread to share your sparkling personality, not the other way around.

And I continue to poke you because I know you're the kind of person who has to have the last word in order to feel superior, and it continues to amuse me to see you prove me right.


Most conservatives support the concept of capitalism and free markets. There are some good things about capitalism - the right to try your hand at things and build something useful and self-fulfilling. However, the modern conservative tends to treat capitalism as a sacred cow. Any suggestion that the system is in need of modification is met with disdain. It's "captitalism" good, Socialism bad. Trying to carry on a rational discussion with people harboring this kind of unforgiving dogma is virtually impossible.

Progressive look around the world and see virtually every advanced country having significant social programs that benefit all. And they wonder that if these program are so undesirable, then why do most advanced countries support them? Many of the world's survival issues could be eradicated with the proper management of resources. And it is patently obvious to them that it is crucial since there are so many people in the world now. Conservatives don't seem to see it that way.


I found this question difficult to answer.

It is primarily because the whole political spectrum moved left the past 200 years.

For example equal rights for all, originally a classical liberal concept is now a right wing concept and in the left it has been replaced with equity (equal outcomes for all).

I strongly support equality and strongly opposed equity.
That would make me far left progressive when I grew up, yet today I am considered conservative.

The political spectrum doesn't move... people move...
If you allow children to be indoctrinated by the Progressive Left if you allow the media to become almost totally Progressive Left the outcome is inevitable.


To me the Achilles heel of the conservatives has always been religion, or rather the over dependence on it.
And with that as Tracy stated, the right to marry whoever you want etc etc that contradict the main religions.

Then I support a progressive wealth tax in exchange for a reduced or flat income tax.
However, the devil is in the details and every left wing party application of that has been flawed to such an extent that it will either not work or never get accepted in a democracy.


Thanks, there are now several such papers presented at conferences and on the internet.

Commonly called UBI-FIT+PWT.
Universal Basic income with Flat Income Tax and Progressive Wealth Tax.

You have to apply all three at the same time and it is such a big jump from the current systems that no one wants to do it.

It is however, in my opinion the way to go and will solve a very large number of human problems.

I proposed in NZ an UBI of $200/week and a income tax of 20% and a progressive wealth tax starting at 0% for wealth up to $2million going progressively up to 5% for wealth above $1billion.
Very few people bought into it, I am a very poor sales men.

Religion and politics are 2 different things.
Conservatives can be atheists or humanists just as easily as they can be religious.
Most support a secular form of Democracy.
In Australia for example Catholics used to only support the socialist workers party... Labor. That hardly supports your theory.

100% agreement.
In the USA, evangelical christians have taken over the conservative movement and the republican party IMO to the determent of both.

Maybe down under or in the UK which have a more secular society.

But in the USA, religion and politics go hand in hand: "in god we trust", "so help me god", "god bless America" are everywhere.

Also, there is not a single atheist conservative in the public eye AFAIK nor a single openly atheist congressperson of any party

@TheMiddleWay Yes I am aware of that... most unsettling if you ask me. But I'd have thought in a country that pushes freedom and free speech that it would be a more secular democracy than a theocracy.
BTW you don't have to be an atheist to believe in or live in a secular democracy.
Oh and as for your assertion that evangelical Christians have taken over the "conservative movement" and the Republicans. We don't see it from here. Are you saying there are no Christians in the Democrats or they are simply not evangelicals?
Just what is the proportion of evangelical christians in the US? 15% love the way you guys even break religions up into colours... that would be WHITE evangelicals...
Hardly a majority eh.
Even christians in general are simply about what 70%? My bet is many of them don't even vote these days.

While religion is endemic to all facets of American politics, democrat or republican, they don't "evangelisize", they have their personal beliefs but work within and towards a secular nation.

Conversely, the evangelical christian movement aims to bring god back into all secular aspects of american life: business, education, politics, marriage etc.

Just google "evangelicals and republicans" and you'll find much more than I can ever cover.... more than you ever wanted to know in fact about non-secular USA. 😟

@TheMiddleWay It would see the Supreme court sees your democracy as secular.
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle which advocates derive from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

@TheMiddleWay thanks for the hint... btw I am already looking into it. 🙂

@TheMiddleWay As the song says, "It ain't necessarily so."

I think neocon Democrats and Republicans have subverted the good aspects of both 'Conservatism' and 'Liberalism' to the detriment of everyone. Take out the War Mongers from both sides of politics including the fake news MSM propagandists, and the entire human race will benefit....

I tend to agree. Whether trolling for votes or trolling for viewers, the pursuit of self interest has really overshadowed their duty to the public.

Yes absolutely true. I also strongly believe that the self interest of powerful elites and politicians has been the predominant reason why WAR has taken presidence over PEACE, throughout history. Those buggers rarely have to suffer and die like the millions of innocent people and willing but deluded patriots do..!


Leftists policies end up in disaster with the right of the population having to clean it up, basically politics in a nutshell. What drives the leftist mind is only God can answer. May be off topic but the divide is so big now anything the left wants is the opposite of the right mostly in spite and an inherent focus on being evil

Mostly in Australia that is the scenario... the Left come in and the Right cleanup after it. which is why the Conservative right spend the most time in government, by a long way.


As pointed out "right" is subjective, right for whom? For example who benefits from open borders and cheap imports if you think it is just the Globalists and Corporatists you would be wrong. The entire soft underbelly of society benefits. The lazy security fixated Millennials, the professional class, academia, the political class, the military industrial complex, lazy intellectuals.

The moral panic as represented by the cult of Wokeness is as much a symptom as a cause. This idea that there is some happy middle ground is actually highly destructive. It's a way of hiding the systemic problems. What is important is not the ideology so much as it's disconnection from physical reality. Both sides have created edifices that either can't be tested or when they fail are blamed on the abstractions of the other side.

Abstractions are powerful tools but are subject to spiraling out of control as seen with the modern theoretical physics industry. Anything not grounded in practical experimentation and open to critique based on it will become corrupt. It leads to a kind of societal insanity.

Complex chaotic systems such as societies are irreducible. Everything effects everything else. Unless some new kind of science is developed unintended consequences will continue to dominate social engineering from both the left and right. If we don't get a handle on it fast our AI masters may take over.

Yeah, our widespread lack of common culture seems insurmountable. The AI overloards might very well be preferable to whatever expectations such a splintered society might eventually impose.

I can't figure out what "isms" are in play. I feel like I might have grown up in a sort of "traditional" version of American liberalism, but it was called conservatism by the 70s and 80s when I was experiencing it. Now, though, there are so many "isms" in play, like you pointed out with globalism, nationalism, authoritarianism, communitarianism, much in play as to be irreducible. I can't see the structure from within it, and can't get outside it. I can look at parts and see them, but it's impossible to see more than a few at a time to see the interactions that form the process.


As pointed out "right" is subjective, right for whom?

Right for you or right by you.
I'm asking for people who lean one way politically, socially or economically to discuss things they agree with from people that lean the other way in those same topics.


My comments were not directed at you. I understand that what I'm saying if off topic but it's the wrong question. The right question is what do we know not what we feel or believe.

@TheMiddleWay Hardly anyone leans only 1 way or the other most people have a mix of political leanings according to the issue at hand.

I am (like yourself apparently) Left leaning and Conservative, I tend to be socially Conservative and Economically more Left leaning. Progressivism and Woke thinking does not enter into my life. Except via external lunacy.
People can be of the Left or of the Right and or Conservative/Progressive on either side, people who think and look at policies can be swinging voters... tribal voters IMO are just useless.

@govols I'll stick with Tracyism....

@govols, @Lightman What you are suggesting is that people make decisions based on the issue, rather than a set ideology/moral system? I think that is the problem.

@tracycoyle That is not what I said at all... but blind ideology is just plain stupidity.


Hardly anyone leans only 1 way or the other most people have a mix of political leanings according to the issue at hand.

Ok. WHY do they make decisions according to the issue at hand? Is it because of their political leanings, or is it the issue that drives the choice?

I don't want to put words into your mouth, (or keyboard!), but what are you suggesting?


Hardly anyone leans only 1 way or the other most people have a mix of political leanings according to the issue at hand.

That is the nature of this question: for people that view themselves as leaning one way on an issue (economic, social, religious, etc) to see if they can find something of worth from the other side of the issue.

@TheMiddleWay Progressive cannot tolerate dissent...


As I try to think of an answer to this question, I find that I have to go back to Democrats such as JFK to find any significant point of agreement (such as his tax policies and his strong stand against Communism). As they have moved more and more to the Left, I find I can't really think of any position on which I agree at the moment. Perhaps someone else will point out an issue that I can agree with them about, but looking over stances on issues as outlined, for example, by the Progressive Policy Institute (, I am currently at a loss.

Although there are a few issues on which I might have agreed, such as genuine concern for the environment, for example, I find that their approach to handling the matter cannot gain my support.


All I can think of is civil rights movement of 1960s Affirmative Action and stuff. Women's rights, yet women owned more property than a men in a man's world then. All of it got twisted and manipulated from its original context/purpose.

1980s had a strong current of bipartianship of Congress, denying raising minimum wage for the working poor yet gave themselves a cost of living increase that was far beyond what most people made in a year, on top of all the other incentives and privileges they delegate themselves.

Legal immigration vs. illegal. Take El Salvadoran refugees for example. The law abiding spent years in Canada obeying and respecting the process. The scofflaws did not. Who got rewarded? Then you expect people to revere the law?

Same for gun control. Look at Chicago for example. Don't forget the gun confiscating alderman who got busted with all those guns in his personal possession either.

Its all a plutocracy.

Thank you for putting this into words that I have been failing to say for decades.

I do not hate women , I hate how men in dresses make women look bad.

I would never be brave enough to share this meme on the internet.


Me from the Right: Gay marriage. Individual liberty says people can marry whom they like.

This was one where my libertarian steak had me leaning toward abolishing civil marriage for civil unions, unions that various faith communities could choose to sanctify or not depending on their traditions.

I have what I think is a pretty compelling argument against gay marriage. Wanna hash it out?

@MassDebater Fire away. I would make the following suggestion - include the principle you are applying.

@tracycoyle For sure, but I suggest we take this outside. my group. 😛

Done. Here: []


The liberal-left notion of multiple subjective perspectives being required to better comprehend reality is valid, but the illiberal-left view that personal "truth" is the only reality available to us...not so much. On the other hand, the illiberal-left has some valid criticisms of social systems and structures that the liberal-left struggles to extract from their authoritarian-left bedmates to help make the ideas helpful and useful in conversation with a liberal-right that might be willing to still do traditional politics.

You are definitely getting somewhere. It isn't as enjoyable as you may have hoped I presume?


I wonder where in the hell I'm getting, though. No, it isn't enjoyable. There IS a certain satisfaction, though, akin to breaking things.


They're really good at screaming.


As one that leans left, I find that conservatives are right to demand that transmen not be able to compete alongside other females contrary to the progressive view that they should.

You still support the idea that boys pretend to be girls and go and watch the girl shower? In other words everyone should be allowed in woman’s bathrooms?

Just one of the things that popped into my mind... you actually never supported that directly that I can recall, you just defended some principles behind it, so I could be out of line.

It was JacksonNaught who could not wait to get in there I now recall.

@Hanno There are going to be ONE or TWO boys that will try that, but for almost all the rest, they are NOT boys (except biologically). They are girls internally and have as much interest (none) as any other girl in the locker rooms/bathrooms. When I was transitioning, going into bathrooms or locker rooms was about doing my business and getting out - not staring at others...though there is a story there too.

I support anyone being anything they want to be as long as they don't tell me who I have to be.

I think a toilet doesn't care if it's male shit or female shit being flushed down itself so why should we.

Thanks for replying, I will not discuss it any further here as it is off topic and I just wondered.

@tracycoyle I thought you were just elderly. I had no idea that you were also transitioned.



Like I told that trans supermodel at Target :
" I am not paid to police toilets , I just thought you wandered in here by mistake ; please let me finish cleaning this bathroom " .

@Mikewee777 a long time ago!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:188540
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.