Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Hyprocrisy of Mianstream Conservatives/Reps

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 12:55:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd like to bring up an observation I've had about the mainstream conservatives one hears primarily in the media.

Essentially, this observation centers around the conservative rallying cry (which, to be fair, has been around as their "principle" forever, but I've been hearing it much more nowadays) I've heard recently: that of the reduction of government. Of SMALL GOVERNMENT FOR THE WIN. Sounds all well and good, yes?

However, this is where my problem comes in. Conservatives love saying that the government should be out of our lives. However, it seems this only applies to their pet issues, much the same way that liberals tend to think. Sure, we want small government in welfare and education, but we CANNOT ALLOW gay marriage. We also must maintain a costly WAR ON DRUGS, and ludicrously pour money into the military. We also want our government to promote the NUCLEAR FAMILY, and TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES.

This thought process doesn't exactly drip with cogency.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because you have different kinds of conservatives, fiscal and social.
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 12:59:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Because you have different kinds of conservatives, fiscal and social.
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...

I understand that.

Hence not only the use of Mainstream in the title, but also the clarification of those prevalent in the media--ie, Bill O.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 1:11:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Because you have different kinds of conservatives, fiscal and social.
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 2:26:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 1:11:48 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Because you have different kinds of conservatives, fiscal and social.
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 2:39:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Because you have different kinds of conservatives, fiscal and social.
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...

Which basically means that some Republicans like to get laid and smoke weed.

Other than that, it's all the same.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 3:03:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...

Isn't that just a Libertarian?
TolerantSpirit
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 3:08:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 3:03:07 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...

Isn't that just a Libertarian?

NO! It's a liberal, like me.

A libertarian is fiscally AND socially liberal.
Think before you talk.
TolerantSpirit
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 3:09:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 3:08:19 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
At 2/18/2013 3:03:07 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...

Isn't that just a Libertarian?

NO! It's a liberal, like me.

A libertarian is fiscally AND socially liberal.

Although I am quite right wing in terms of I dislike controlling rights to compete but definitely support progressive taxation and welfare.
Think before you talk.
TolerantSpirit
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 3:10:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 3:09:38 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
At 2/18/2013 3:08:19 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
At 2/18/2013 3:03:07 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...

Isn't that just a Libertarian?

NO! It's a liberal, like me.

A libertarian is fiscally AND socially liberal.

Although I am quite right wing in terms of I dislike controlling rights to compete but definitely support progressive taxation and welfare.

I meant I am slightly right wing but somewhat left...
Think before you talk.
TolerantSpirit
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 3:10:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 3:10:11 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
At 2/18/2013 3:09:38 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
At 2/18/2013 3:08:19 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
At 2/18/2013 3:03:07 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...

Isn't that just a Libertarian?

NO! It's a liberal, like me.

A libertarian is fiscally AND socially liberal.

Although I am quite right wing in terms of I dislike controlling rights to compete but definitely support progressive taxation and welfare.

I meant I am slightly right wing but somewhat left...

Nvm....
Think before you talk.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 3:14:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 3:07:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You just realized this?

No bruh. I'm just posting it now.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 5:48:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just about everyone in my family is hardcore conservatives, and it is frustrating that they can't see the contradiction here.

Christ, the other day i was arguing that people have a right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home as long as they don't threaten another persons rights. My brother took made the craziest logical leap and thus presumed that I think murder should be legal.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 6:52:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Small government" has become a term used as a straw-man to attack conservatives on social issues. The philosophy of conservatism advocates limited government (not "small" government) -- An elected government restrained by a system of checks and balances as well as the Constitutional framework that legitimizes its' authority.

How can a government be "limited" if it is unilaterally redefining marriage and forcing the states to accept it? And the authority to maintain a standing army is given to the government in the Constitution. It is important to have a strong military to protect our interests and sovereignty. And to a certain extent, it is reasonable for the government to encourage a strong family, especially given how far better of people are having been raised in an intact family. I don't see hypocrisy in holding any of those views.

Yet you don't see the hypocrisy of advocating "liberty" while ignoring the trampling of private property rights resulting from being on the wrong side of the homosexuals' agenda.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 7:07:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 3:08:19 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
At 2/18/2013 3:03:07 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 2/18/2013 12:57:52 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The obviously correct choice is being a fiscal conservative and social liberal...

Isn't that just a Libertarian?

NO! It's a liberal, like me.

A libertarian is fiscally AND socially liberal.

Lol no. Liberal, in the modern sense, means being socially libertarian and economically left. A libertarian, in the modern sense, means being socially libertarian and economically right.

Also, don't give that crap about left-wing libertarians. They can't exist due to the law of non-contradiction.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 8:30:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 12:55:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
we want small government in welfare and education, but we CANNOT ALLOW gay marriage.

GET OUT. "Allowing gay marriage" IS big government. The gays should be glad that Conservatives are saying "no we don't want government getting involved in your relationship and affairs."

We also must maintain a costly WAR ON DRUGS, and ludicrously pour money into the military.

That's Neo-Con, not Conservative.

We also want our government to promote the NUCLEAR FAMILY, and TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES.

This thought process doesn't exactly drip with cogency.

Yes, "promoting traditional family values" is good. They're not using force to do it. The breaking up of the family is ruining the country.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 8:33:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 3:08:19 PM, TolerantSpirit wrote:
NO! It's a liberal, like me.

A libertarian is fiscally AND socially liberal.

Completely and utterly FALSE. In fact, it could be argued that the exact opposite is true. Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul, and the Paleo-Conservatives are almost entirely the whole-package Libertarian.

I think "Socially Liberal" values are very ANTI-Libertarian.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 8:49:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 6:52:38 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
"Small government" has become a term used as a straw-man to attack conservatives on social issues. The philosophy of conservatism advocates limited government (not "small" government) -- An elected government restrained by a system of checks and balances as well as the Constitutional framework that legitimizes its' authority.

How can a government be "limited" if it is unilaterally redefining marriage and forcing the states to accept it? And the authority to maintain a standing army is given to the government in the Constitution. It is important to have a strong military to protect our interests and sovereignty. And to a certain extent, it is reasonable for the government to encourage a strong family, especially given how far better of people are having been raised in an intact family. I don't see hypocrisy in holding any of those views.

Yet you don't see the hypocrisy of advocating "liberty" while ignoring the trampling of private property rights resulting from being on the wrong side of the homosexuals' agenda.

There is nothing hypocritical in holding those views. What is hypocritical is advocating for government involvement when it suits your desires, but attacking your opponents for wanting "big government" when it suits theirs. Conservatives are famous for this, and it is quite mind boggling that they for the most part get away with it.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:44:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 12:55:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'd like to bring up an observation I've had about the mainstream conservatives one hears primarily in the media.

Essentially, this observation centers around the conservative rallying cry (which, to be fair, has been around as their "principle" forever, but I've been hearing it much more nowadays) I've heard recently: that of the reduction of government. Of SMALL GOVERNMENT FOR THE WIN. Sounds all well and good, yes?

However, this is where my problem comes in. Conservatives love saying that the government should be out of our lives. However, it seems this only applies to their pet issues, much the same way that liberals tend to think. Sure, we want small government in welfare and education, but we CANNOT ALLOW gay marriage. We also must maintain a costly WAR ON DRUGS, and ludicrously pour money into the military. We also want our government to promote the NUCLEAR FAMILY, and TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES.

This thought process doesn't exactly drip with cogency.

That is what the conservatism/conservative principle means: "principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." You might have traditionalism in mind when you criticized the conservatism. So where is the hypocrisy?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:50:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 5:48:49 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Just about everyone in my family is hardcore conservatives, and it is frustrating that they can't see the contradiction here.

Christ, the other day i was arguing that people have a right to do what they want in the privacy of their own home as long as they don't threaten another persons rights. My brother took made the craziest logical leap and thus presumed that I think murder should be legal.

What does it have to with conservatism?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 9:57:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 8:49:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/18/2013 6:52:38 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
"Small government" has become a term used as a straw-man to attack conservatives on social issues. The philosophy of conservatism advocates limited government (not "small" government) -- An elected government restrained by a system of checks and balances as well as the Constitutional framework that legitimizes its' authority.

How can a government be "limited" if it is unilaterally redefining marriage and forcing the states to accept it? And the authority to maintain a standing army is given to the government in the Constitution. It is important to have a strong military to protect our interests and sovereignty. And to a certain extent, it is reasonable for the government to encourage a strong family, especially given how far better of people are having been raised in an intact family. I don't see hypocrisy in holding any of those views.

Yet you don't see the hypocrisy of advocating "liberty" while ignoring the trampling of private property rights resulting from being on the wrong side of the homosexuals' agenda.

There is nothing hypocritical in holding those views. What is hypocritical is advocating for government involvement when it suits your desires, but attacking your opponents for wanting "big government" when it suits theirs. Conservatives are famous for this, and it is quite mind boggling that they for the most part get away with it.

Mind sharing an example with everyone?
If you were referring to the gay marriage, the issue can be justified on the ground of "protection of traditional American values." It would have almost nothing to do with "big government."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 10:06:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 9:44:24 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/18/2013 12:55:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'd like to bring up an observation I've had about the mainstream conservatives one hears primarily in the media.

Essentially, this observation centers around the conservative rallying cry (which, to be fair, has been around as their "principle" forever, but I've been hearing it much more nowadays) I've heard recently: that of the reduction of government. Of SMALL GOVERNMENT FOR THE WIN. Sounds all well and good, yes?

However, this is where my problem comes in. Conservatives love saying that the government should be out of our lives. However, it seems this only applies to their pet issues, much the same way that liberals tend to think. Sure, we want small government in welfare and education, but we CANNOT ALLOW gay marriage. We also must maintain a costly WAR ON DRUGS, and ludicrously pour money into the military. We also want our government to promote the NUCLEAR FAMILY, and TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES.

This thought process doesn't exactly drip with cogency.

That is what the conservatism/conservative principle means: "principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." You might have traditionalism in mind when you criticized the conservatism. So where is the hypocrisy?

The hypocrisy is that when they get into office they expand govt, expand debt and government influence, won't recognize that traditional american values are ever changing and don't want people to have freedom to do things they don't agree with. They also used to stand for humble foreign policy which is no more.
The hypocrisy isn't necessarily in their position's, its that their actions don't match their rhetoric.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:41:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the OP is claiming that if one holds a broad principle, then it is hypocrisy to find limits to the principle. Thus, Conservatives want small government, but, OMG, the miserable hypocrites want bank robbery outlawed.

Conservatives want a much smaller government overall, but there is a legitimate ongoing debate among Conservative as to what government intervention is legitimate. The Left argues that the only legitimate debate is over how fast government should grow, and any overall reduction is unthinkable extremism. While that is the national issue, it's a waste of time arguing about differences among Conservatives.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 10:57:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 10:41:34 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Conservatives want a much smaller government overall, but there is a legitimate ongoing debate among Conservative as to what government intervention is legitimate. The Left argues that the only legitimate debate is over how fast government should grow, and any overall reduction is unthinkable extremism. While that is the national issue, it's a waste of time arguing about differences among Conservatives.

Is it a waste of time? Conservatives didn't lose in 2012 because they wanted to shrink the government, they lost because the left was able to slam them on social issues. Issues like women's issues and gay rights, which are never going to become winning issues.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2013 12:11:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/18/2013 12:55:43 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I'd like to bring up an observation I've had about the mainstream conservatives one hears primarily in the media.

Essentially, this observation centers around the conservative rallying cry (which, to be fair, has been around as their "principle" forever, but I've been hearing it much more nowadays) I've heard recently: that of the reduction of government. Of SMALL GOVERNMENT FOR THE WIN. Sounds all well and good, yes?

However, this is where my problem comes in. Conservatives love saying that the government should be out of our lives. However, it seems this only applies to their pet issues, much the same way that liberals tend to think. Sure, we want small government in welfare and education, but we CANNOT ALLOW gay marriage. We also must maintain a costly WAR ON DRUGS, and ludicrously pour money into the military. We also want our government to promote the NUCLEAR FAMILY, and TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES.

This thought process doesn't exactly drip with cogency.

Ayn Rand actually wrote a piece on this that I thought was spot on:

"The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man"s spirit, i.e., man"s consciousness; they advocate the State"s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom"). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property"they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation...

Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the "mystics of spirit." And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the "mystics of muscle."

This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises... "Control," to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man"s consciousness; the liberals, his body."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2013 10:23:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/19/2013 12:11:12 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Ayn Rand actually wrote a piece on this that I thought was spot on:

"The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man"s spirit, i.e., man"s consciousness; they advocate the State"s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom"). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property"they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation...

Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the "mystics of spirit." And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the "mystics of muscle."

This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises... "Control," to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man"s consciousness; the liberals, his body."

What do you mean by "each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grant freedom only to the activities it despises...?" Conservatives desire the control of one"s consciousness while attempting to grant free to the production of material wealth. So are you suggesting that the conservatives, in general, detest material wealthy whereas liberals, generally speaking, despise man"s consciousness? If so, I don"t believe it is a fair analysis.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 10:38:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/20/2013 10:23:08 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/19/2013 12:11:12 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Ayn Rand actually wrote a piece on this that I thought was spot on:

"The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man"s spirit, i.e., man"s consciousness; they advocate the State"s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with "academic freedom"). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property"they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation...

Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the "mystics of spirit." And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the "mystics of muscle."

This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises... "Control," to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man"s consciousness; the liberals, his body."

What do you mean by "each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grant freedom only to the activities it despises...?" Conservatives desire the control of one"s consciousness while attempting to grant free to the production of material wealth. So are you suggesting that the conservatives, in general, detest material wealthy whereas liberals, generally speaking, despise man"s consciousness? If so, I don"t believe it is a fair analysis.

Her point was that conservatives are predominantly religious, that they shun earthly, materialistic, and scientific explanations while exalting the spiritual while liberals tend to be secular materialists who cast aside spiritual explanations. They're always trying to eliminate the ghost in the machine, so to say. Also take into account that this was written decades ago, when Communism was still a world power and a potent influence on the worldview of the left. Also take in mind that a lot of Rand's thoughts were shaped by the October revolution, where she saw the brutal spiritualism of old Russia pitched against faux-scientific and thuggish Bolshevism, both of which disgusted her thoroughly. She probably saw echoes of this in the American politics of the times.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -