In general, I believe that broad brush is accurate for liberals today. What you are describing is someone who is a pragmatist versus an ideologue. In the not too distant past, there were indeed many pragmatists on both sides of the political aisle. Sadly that is rarely the case in today’s toxic political environment.
What should happen if a child is born into poverty?
What should happen if a child does not graduate school?
What should happen if a child gets involved in drugs?
What should happen if a child joins a gang?
What should happen if a child gets in trouble with the law?
My thinking is the “should happen” leans more to society’s response.
I think liberal/conservative are differentiated not only by who they blame for the past, but how they approach the future and repairing the past/present.
What does that even mean? Why does society have to respond if a child is born into poverty??? Why does society need to respond if a child doesn’t graduate high school??? The child is the one that needs to respond.
Maybe that is the answer the OP is looking for? The LIB response would be that society owes something to those children. The Conservative response would be that society owes them nothing.
In regards to drugs and trouble with the law, again society owes them nothing. If they break the law they pay the consequences. The conservative response.
Do we really need details of how he will reinstitute corporate regulations, massive tax increases, legalizing all the illegal invaders, ending fracking, stopping border wall construction and creating huge energy consumption fees? Is it really that complicated? Something hidden between the lines?
Better question is how do you tell if you are a liberal or progressive because they’re quiet a few people not mentioning names that say they are liberals but sound more like Sanders who is clearly a progressive.
Good post, but I’m confused a little. Social programs cost money. So being a social liberal (neo?) and a fiscal conservative doesn’t put you in a contradiction?
And the government sucks at determining root causes of problems and providing good ideas about making it better.
The gist of my argument is along the lines of views that lean to individual responsibility as opposed to sociological blame. Regarding how I view someone in poverty having children, let me put it this way. If someone living in poverty asked me if they should have a child I would say to them to do what you can to get your life in a better situation first and also have the child with a good person who is going to be committed to you and your child ideally in marriage.
It is important to remember that living in poverty isn’t necessarily a death sentence. As I stated, our family of 10 lived below the official poverty line. But we lived a relatively comfortable life, had food on the table and a roof over our heads. All of that long before the social programs of today.
We didn’t have the latest or greatest gadgets, had to settle for hand-me-downs from the oldest to the youngest, etc… I can’t conceive of them making a decision not to have any kids because of their station in life. I certainly wouldn’t be here today if they had made that decision.
So again I’m confused by where you are going with this.