Blue Stater response to answers of Question Number 5: What makes you a conservative? What are the values that underlie your allegiance to your chosen form of political belief?

This is how it should have come down:

The question is not whether the free market creates wealth, the question is what kind of wealth and at what cost. Is everyone getting wealthy? Does the system give everyone a fair chance, or is it structured to maintain those who have resources. One of the problems I have with this kind of thinking is that it assumes that the market is fair and that it does not discriminate between those with resources and those without.

The market is ruthless and driven by nothing but greed and consumption. You have to have money to make money. When our quality of life is measured in square footage and the number of appliances we own, then I am suspicious. Having lived in England for seven years, I can tell you that living space is not connected to happiness or wealth.

In some ways, the Europeans have an edge on us Americans because they are not plagued by the size of things. Bigger is not always better. So what if you have a larger apartment to be poor in? Is having a mortgage that you cant pay an advantage? Does paying 19 percent on your credit card make you happy? After all, you have that great TV and all those channels of interesting programming! It might make the economy happy, but does it make you happy?

If there is one thing that I am trying to instill in my children it is the realization that quality should always win out over quantity. And that quality is not found at the mall or on TV or even in the GNP. Quality is not the size of your house or your SUV or your erogenous zones.

I also think that comparing ourselves to other countries is a cop-out. As Americans we should compare ourselves to our own ideals. What happens when we compare is that the poor become the "poor." Maybe knowing that they have more things to plug in will stop them complaining. It comes masked as a kind of count-your-blessings thing, but really it is an appeal to maintaining the status quo and not changing a thing.

Conservatives tend to look back and long for the day when life was simple and good and wholesome. Surprise, that time never existed. Besides, America should always strive to progress. Who cares if we have bigger houses, more shopping networks, and an economy that dwarfs the rest of the world. We are Americans and that means that we have a responsibility to EVERY American.

An unbridled free market does not help every American. It is built on the backs of those that have less and cannot compete because of discrimination, education, or money. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that those who benefit from the system are more likely to want to keep it, but when the cost of that system overrides the American ideals of equality and fairness, then there is a problem. I don't want to be a part of that mentality even though I benefit from it.

What is comes down to is a flawed assumption: The market is good and government is bad. Both have their good side and their bad side. They both need to be present to help keep the other in check. Capitalism keeps us from sliding into socialism, which has not proved itself to be successful for all sorts of reasons. But government, when it is done well and with a social conscience, keeps us from becoming completely absorbed in our own pursuits and living as ruthless consumers. Without a balance of both we will not progress. That is one reason why I like to be a called a progressive. What is wrong with progress?

As for education, I am stunned that Cindy thinks that conservatives have done more for education.

As a teacher I could not disagree more. How can pulling the floor out from under education be a good thing? The idea that we need to go back to the one-room schoolhouse and the three Rs is ludicrous. I teach in the humanities where thinking and writing are extremely important. But year after year I see very privileged students come to college with little or no ability to write or think critically. They have been taught to do well on their tests so that their schools get all the funding they can.

My 13-year-old daughter caught this right away. "Daddy, why do they give more money to the schools that have high test scores? Wouldn't it make sense to spend more time on the schools that don't do as well?" Yes, but not with a conservative ideology that is built on the premise that you exalt the talented and leave the rest behind. No Child Left Behind is a wonderful idea, but that is all it is under this administration.

I share Cindy's concern with education but I do not see how this kind of fiscal austerity will result in the kind of students who can move America forward. We need educated Americans as much as we need trained Americans. Let's spend money on our kids, not military misadventures.

I have a tougher time with Joe's comments. I too grew up with the same set of maxims as him. My grandfather was a farmer and I grew up in a small Iowa town. I learned to fix my own cars because I could not see paying mechanics when I could do the work; same for painting my house, building my own deck, and renovating the attic this summer for the boys.

As I get older, I have to watch that I don't balloon out of control because I can't let anyone throw food away in our house. But I ride my bike to work every day because I don't like dragging around a huge chunk of metal. My kids are the same way; frugal, resourceful, and careful about consuming things. For me, all of my small town values have pushed me to be MORE liberal.

Look at the atrocious spending habits of our current president. Look at the waste and corruption and near total neglect of our natural resources. Talk about throwing food away! I simply do not buy the myth that this set of values (which I wholeheartedly agree with) leads to conservative politics.

But Joe's comments are more revealing than that. It's not that he is wholeheartedly supportive of the president - his previous comments are not blind party line politics - but he is adamant about one thing: He's no liberal! This, I believe, is what many conservatives think. It's not that Bush is so great, but the if the choice is between liberal and conservative, they will go with conservative even if it means voting for Bush to vote against Kerry.

There is a little of that thinking in me as well, mutatis mutandis. This aversion to liberals is partly the fault of the liberals who have done a less than satisfactory job of defining themselves in the marketplace of ideas. The last few months, however, have been exciting because for the first time in a long time, Democrats are united. But the word "liberal" as a smear is also a product of a relentless and mostly successful media campaign by conservatives to paint liberals as urban, latte drinking, Birkenstock wearing, idealistic, ex-hippie types, who are as brainless as the Republican rube stereotype. Both are equally false.

Liberals, or progressives as we like to be called now, need to do a better job defining ourselves. Many of us hold the same "family values" but we do not feel the urge to pound it over peoples' heads. I am not speaking about Joe here, because I get the feeling that he is not that type either. But for me, heartland values can just as easily lead to liberalism. Look at Iowa, Minnesota, and Alabama.

For me a crucial difference is whether we focus our energy on ourselves or whether these values are translated into the larger world beyond nationalism (called patriotism by many conservatives), the free market, and cultural practices. In both of the Red State descriptions, there is a concern for personal wealth and well being. In my opinion, this is provincial and limited. We can do better. Isn't the well-being of others equally important to our personal well-being? I am speaking in general here and am not trying to personalize this idea, but Cindy and Joe do represent this kind of emphasis. It is not something I share even if the values are the same.