zlacker

> Go over to YouTube and bring up some Reagan-Mondale or Clinton-Bush debates and compare their tone and temperament to what we see today.

Reminded me of a fascinating video I recall; Bush and Reagan debate illegal immigration in 1980's primary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok

They sound more liberal than half of today's Democrats.

>>ceejay+(OP)
The positioning to me (which drifts over time) is less interesting than the higher quality of the discourse.

Granted, this was in a smaller venue, but seeing H.W. actually consider the question on the spot and deliver an on-topic, detailed answer outlining his position was... refreshing.

Presumption that the question is valid and interesting, the asker is to be respected, and supporters of the platform espoused and opponents have good points and should be respected.

Empathetic disagreement is not something you typically see anywhere recently. It's been boiled down to staccato sound bites.

>>ceejay+(OP)
> They sound more liberal than half of today's Democrats.

As classic liberals, they actually were.

>>s1arti+H7
That's cool and all, but I didn't say classical liberalism.

>>ceejay+x8
Sorry if i wasn't more specific. I was intending to highlight the commonality and overlap between classic liberal philosophy what we identify as modern upper case Liberals.

I think the video does a good job of highlighting how many classic liberals actually had the same tenants and objectives, such as respect, compassion, and human development.