• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's liberalism? What's conservatism?

Mithrae

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
8,314
Reaction score
4,112
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Here's a couple of comments made by two noteworthy conservative members of this forum in just the last 24 hours:
The only "starting over" liberals want is to shred the founding documents and install a tingly-leg dictator. A communist revolution is what Matthews, MSNBC and liberalism in general seeks.
Click to expand...

Environmentalists are liberals first. There is an agenda and the truth could not matter less. Any pretext for control will do.
Click to expand...

I know this thread has been done before, but I really want to understand why it's so difficult for some folk to comprehend reality.

Do 'liberals' struggle this mightily to understand what 'conservative' means?

Maybe as a liberal I just don't see it, but I don't think that this is nearly as much of a problem from 'our' side. The word conservative implies conservation, some form of traditionalism: We regularly see the distinction of 'social conservative,' often expressed in terms of a loosely Christian moral framework, and 'fiscal conservative' generally favouring budget surpluses, lower taxes and limited business regulation. Somewhere in the mix, particularly in America, there are elements of specifically 'small government' rhetoric and (sometimes even from the same individuals) of greater military funding and/or international intervention.

Maybe I've got that all wrong. But if not, regardless of whether I agree with those positions it's surely not that hard to recognise them and somewhat understand the thought processes which lie behind them.

But when it comes to 'liberal'? Hmm... the word means 'freedom'... therefore liberals must be promoting dictatorship and control!

Is that really the intellectual level on which some of our prominent members 'debate'?



Labels can be misleading, they can encourage oversimplification, partisanship and divisiveness. But they can be useful, and since many of us have a tendency to use them regardless of those pitfalls, it should be the most basic element of intellectual integrity to at least use them with some accuracy, rather than as ideological sledgehammers to make Goebbels proud.

So what is (modern/American) liberalism?
And for that matter, what is conservatism?

There are no clear-cut lines here, but setting aside the contradictory nature of some 'conservative' (and no doubt liberal) positions, I'd like to offer this as a non-partisan starting point:
> Many conservatives put more emphasis on freedom to conduct business or own guns or the like
> Many/most liberals put more emphasis on freedom from the impositions of others' dangerous behaviour or religions or pollution or concentrated ownership of resources
 
When the right wing has spent the better part of 40 years turning "liberal" into a swear word and building strawman after strawman of What Liberals Really Believe, this is the result -- people who think every liberal is Stalin in the making.
 
Mithrae said:
Here's a couple of comments made by two noteworthy conservative members of this forum in just the last 24 hours:

I know this thread has been done before, but I really want to understand why it's so difficult for some folk to comprehend reality.

Do 'liberals' struggle this mightily to understand what 'conservative' means?

Maybe as a liberal I just don't see it, but I don't think that this is nearly as much of a problem from 'our' side. The word conservative implies conservation, some form of traditionalism: We regularly see the distinction of 'social conservative,' often expressed in terms of a loosely Christian moral framework, and 'fiscal conservative' generally favouring budget surpluses, lower taxes and limited business regulation. Somewhere in the mix, particularly in America, there are elements of specifically 'small government' rhetoric and (sometimes even from the same individuals) of greater military funding and/or international intervention.

Maybe I've got that all wrong. But if not, regardless of whether I agree with those positions it's surely not that hard to recognise them and somewhat understand the thought processes which lie behind them.

But when it comes to 'liberal'? Hmm... the word means 'freedom'... therefore liberals must be promoting dictatorship and control!

Is that really the intellectual level on which some of our prominent members 'debate'?

Labels can be misleading, they can encourage oversimplification, partisanship and divisiveness. But they can be useful, and since many of us have a tendency to use them regardless of those pitfalls, it should be the most basic element of intellectual integrity to at least use them with some accuracy, rather than as ideological sledgehammers to make Goebbels proud.

So what is (modern/American) liberalism?
And for that matter, what is conservatism?

There are no clear-cut lines here, but setting aside the contradictory nature of some 'conservative' (and no doubt liberal) positions, I'd like to offer this as a non-partisan starting point:
> Many conservatives put more emphasis on freedom to conduct business or own guns or the like
> Many/most liberals put more emphasis on freedom from the impositions of others' dangerous behaviour or religions or pollution or concentrated ownership of resources
Click to expand...

And I thought the difference was that conservatives work 'em hard in the cotton fields, while liberals have bought machines.
 
Well, in america it doesn't mean anything because you only have 2 parties. It's basically a term that conservatives use to define the other party.
And btw, conservative doesn't mean anything either in america because it's just a term used by liberals to define the other party.

Where it does mean something is usually in multi-party states, like European nations. And even there it's a bit tricky.
Where it doesn't mean anything is however, at the EU-level where the only real distinction is between people who are pro-EU, anti-EU or on the fence.
And within European nations, each country where a liberal party acts, it has slightly different terms on its platform than other parties who are liberal but in other countries.
And within the broad spectrum of European countries, liberal means something in western europe because they have a political culture and not a lot in eastern europe where there is no political culture in the real sense of the word.
 
Jesse Booth said:
I think your definition is a little inadequate.
Click to expand...

You mean, I should have mentioned that their cotton harvesters replaced the pickers and the liberals therefore introduced a minimum wage?
 
Neither of them are philosophies. They're just groups of people. The definitions of liberal and conservative vary from place to place and time to time.
 
Mithrae said:
Here's a couple of comments made by two noteworthy conservative members of this forum in just the last 24 hours:




I know this thread has been done before, but I really want to understand why it's so difficult for some folk to comprehend reality.

Do 'liberals' struggle this mightily to understand what 'conservative' means?

Maybe as a liberal I just don't see it, but I don't think that this is nearly as much of a problem from 'our' side. The word conservative implies conservation, some form of traditionalism: We regularly see the distinction of 'social conservative,' often expressed in terms of a loosely Christian moral framework, and 'fiscal conservative' generally favouring budget surpluses, lower taxes and limited business regulation. Somewhere in the mix, particularly in America, there are elements of specifically 'small government' rhetoric and (sometimes even from the same individuals) of greater military funding and/or international intervention.

Maybe I've got that all wrong. But if not, regardless of whether I agree with those positions it's surely not that hard to recognise them and somewhat understand the thought processes which lie behind them.

But when it comes to 'liberal'? Hmm... the word means 'freedom'... therefore liberals must be promoting dictatorship and control!

Is that really the intellectual level on which some of our prominent members 'debate'?



Labels can be misleading, they can encourage oversimplification, partisanship and divisiveness. But they can be useful, and since many of us have a tendency to use them regardless of those pitfalls, it should be the most basic element of intellectual integrity to at least use them with some accuracy, rather than as ideological sledgehammers to make Goebbels proud.

So what is (modern/American) liberalism?
And for that matter, what is conservatism?

There are no clear-cut lines here, but setting aside the contradictory nature of some 'conservative' (and no doubt liberal) positions, I'd like to offer this as a non-partisan starting point:
> Many conservatives put more emphasis on freedom to conduct business or own guns or the like
> Many/most liberals put more emphasis on freedom from the impositions of others' dangerous behaviour or religions or pollution or concentrated ownership of resources
Click to expand...


Liberals and Conservatives are just two sides of the same capitalist coin. There are no fundamental ideological differences between them. The placing of emphasis on slightly different illusory freedoms is a matter of hue, not a different colour.
 
Liberal is being a Blood sucking, welfare taking, parasitical, baby killing, anti-troop, anti-American, communist, socialist, muslim, athiest, terrorist loving, homosexual faggot.

Conservative is being a homophobic, xenophobic, warmongering, women hating, fascist, uneducated, stupid racist.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Liberal is being a Blood sucking, welfare taking, parasitical, baby killing, anti-troop, anti-American, communist, socialist, muslim, athiest, terrorist loving, homosexual faggot.

Conservative is being a homophobic, xenophobic, warmongering, women hating, fascist, uneducated, stupid racist.
Click to expand...

All broad generalizations are inaccurate, including the one I just made.
 
Mithrae said:
Here's a couple of comments made by two noteworthy conservative members of this forum in just the last 24 hours:

I know this thread has been done before, but I really want to understand why it's so difficult for some folk to comprehend reality.

Do 'liberals' struggle this mightily to understand what 'conservative' means?

Maybe as a liberal I just don't see it, but I don't think that this is nearly as much of a problem from 'our' side. The word conservative implies conservation, some form of traditionalism: We regularly see the distinction of 'social conservative,' often expressed in terms of a loosely Christian moral framework, and 'fiscal conservative' generally favouring budget surpluses, lower taxes and limited business regulation. Somewhere in the mix, particularly in America, there are elements of specifically 'small government' rhetoric and (sometimes even from the same individuals) of greater military funding and/or international intervention.

Maybe I've got that all wrong. But if not, regardless of whether I agree with those positions it's surely not that hard to recognise them and somewhat understand the thought processes which lie behind them.

But when it comes to 'liberal'? Hmm... the word means 'freedom'... therefore liberals must be promoting dictatorship and control!

Is that really the intellectual level on which some of our prominent members 'debate'?



Labels can be misleading, they can encourage oversimplification, partisanship and divisiveness. But they can be useful, and since many of us have a tendency to use them regardless of those pitfalls, it should be the most basic element of intellectual integrity to at least use them with some accuracy, rather than as ideological sledgehammers to make Goebbels proud.

So what is (modern/American) liberalism?
And for that matter, what is conservatism?

There are no clear-cut lines here, but setting aside the contradictory nature of some 'conservative' (and no doubt liberal) positions, I'd like to offer this as a non-partisan starting point:
> Many conservatives put more emphasis on freedom to conduct business or own guns or the like
> Many/most liberals put more emphasis on freedom from the impositions of others' dangerous behaviour or religions or pollution or concentrated ownership of resources
Click to expand...

Andalublue said:
Liberals and Conservatives are just two sides of the same capitalist coin. There are no fundamental ideological differences between them. The placing of emphasis on slightly different illusory freedoms is a matter of hue, not a different colour.
Click to expand...

Rainman05 said:
Well, in america it doesn't mean anything because you only have 2 parties. It's basically a term that conservatives use to define the other party.
And btw, conservative doesn't mean anything either in america because it's just a term used by liberals to define the other party.

Where it does mean something is usually in multi-party states, like European nations. And even there it's a bit tricky.
Where it doesn't mean anything is however, at the EU-level where the only real distinction is between people who are pro-EU, anti-EU or on the fence.
And within European nations, each country where a liberal party acts, it has slightly different terms on its platform than other parties who are liberal but in other countries.
And within the broad spectrum of European countries, liberal means something in western europe because they have a political culture and not a lot in eastern europe where there is no political culture in the real sense of the word.
Click to expand...

In the US at least, the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative boils down to your view of the effectiveness of governance and where it should be applied. Conservatives will correctly point out the inefficiencies from a massive bureaucracy that can't even keep track of how much money it spends. And even when the government is needed, conservatives will first look to the private sector for solutions, as that will result in less money being wasted. However, that doesn't mean that government *can't* still do those things, it's just going to cost a lot more money than when the private sector does it. And this is fine for things like water treatment, taking care of roads and what not. But we live in a compassionate society, and there are some costs that we are willing to burden to make sure that people are taken care of, like Medicare or Social Security.

There are two caveats that often make it difficult to tell the difference, causes much of the cynicism:

First off, especially in the case of Conservatives, a lot of the confusion stems when other schools of thought come into the mix. If you boil down what an average conservative thinks, you'll generally get some variance on the phrase "less government is better than more." But when you have conservatism begin to mingle with groups like Christians, this is when you start to have contradictions to that core statement. For example, Christian Conservatives believe that we should minimize government interfering in our lives, but also believe that they need to force their religions views on others (i.e. SSM and Abortion).

The other caveat of course is when it comes to foreign policy. After all, liberals are right to point the irony in the fact that the same group that is so skeptical of government, is also the ones championing regime changes and starting up new governments. However, there is still a reason with it and that all stems from the Cold War period. For a conservative, the Soviet Union was the antithesis of all that they opposed, that being big government run amok. And this is why they were so aggressive in facing the threat head on. Conservatives made the issue of facing the Soviet Union as a personal matter, viewing that their core values were under attack. For liberal though, there were some common ground that they shared with communism; after all, communism is just another form of socialism. Where people on the right make their mistake, is confusing the lack of passion against the Soviets, for somehow being complicit with them. However, Liberals were just as ready to oppose the Soviet Union, as John F Kennedy demonstrated. But they only would do so because they weren't worried of the ideological conflict, but of the real threat of the US having to face a world gone red.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
And even when the government is needed, conservatives will first look to the private sector for solutions, as that will result in less money being wasted. However, that doesn't mean that government *can't* still do those things, it's just going to cost a lot more money than when the private sector does it.
Click to expand...

This point is decisively proved wrong when you look at the astronomical cost of the US's fully privatised health-care system. Other government-run health systems do it better and immensely cheaper.
 
Andalublue said:
This point is decisively proved wrong when you look at the astronomical cost of the US's fully privatised health-care system. Other government-run health systems do it better and immensely cheaper.
Click to expand...

i agree, but our health care system is not fully privatized.

i do think it should be made much more public, though.
 
Andalublue said:
This point is decisively proved wrong when you look at the astronomical cost of the US's fully privatised health-care system. Other government-run health systems do it better and immensely cheaper.
Click to expand...

Just look at the debacles of medicare and medicaid. Both are running broke and in some cases, doctors won't even see patients. The other problem is that you are comparing the cost to the government (for you) and in the US it's the cost to the individual. Obamacare has essentially made it where it's a one size fits all, thus inevitably raising premiums for many Americans when some don't need the full coverage. Again, it's a question of effiecency. Men don't need maternity leave after all.
 
Kobie said:
When the right wing has spent the better part of 40 years turning "liberal" into a swear word and building strawman after strawman of What Liberals Really Believe, this is the result -- people who think every liberal is Stalin in the making.
Click to expand...

I think it was best exemplified by Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair. The discourse from the right seems to be primarily aimed at a boogeyman who exists only in their imaginations, rather than actual people. There's no debate between people. There's only the caricatures who occupy the imaginary space in the empty chair.

To the OP, I'm not sure exactly what stances or policies are liberal and which are conservative. Obviously each exists on a spectrum. The unifying mindsets, however, seem to be this; Liberals seem to be motivated by a hope for a better future, while conservatives seem to be motivated by fear of a worse one. Liberals want to act and fix things because it might make things better, while conservatives want to leave things as they are so they don't get worse. We'd do better with real discourse between these two perspectives instead of one side talking to an empty chair.
 
Basically? Liberals want a government big enough to protect every "right" except the ones in the Constitution, and conservatives want a government small enough to fit in your bedroom.

The words might have had some real meaning, long ago, but the corporate whores who control our government have long since decided that words only mean what they want them to.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Basically? Liberals want a government big enough to protect every "right" except the ones in the Constitution, and conservatives want a government small enough to fit in your bedroom.

The words might have had some real meaning, long ago, but the corporate whores who control our government have long since decided that words only mean what they want them to.
Click to expand...

That might be what Democrat and Republican mean, but those aren't remotely close to what liberal and conservative mean.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Basically? Liberals want a government big enough to protect every "right" except the ones in the Constitution, and conservatives want a government small enough to fit in your bedroom.

The words might have had some real meaning, long ago, but the corporate whores who control our government have long since decided that words only mean what they want them to.
Click to expand...

All rights are in the constitution. That's what the ninth amendment is for. It protects un-enumerated rights. What rights do we have? I would argue that we have every conceivable right that there's no legitimate reason to curtail. That definitely includes the enumerated rights in the first eight amendments.
 
Andalublue said:
Liberals and Conservatives are just two sides of the same capitalist coin. There are no fundamental ideological differences between them. The placing of emphasis on slightly different illusory freedoms is a matter of hue, not a different colour.
Click to expand...

But I used the same colour! I agree that the two terms aren't diametrically opposed, and I think that perception and the demonisation/woeful ignorance of 'the other side' is quite damaging. That's why the freedom to/freedom from distinction is a good starting point, in my opinion; while there are some obvious 'conservative' positions it doesn't cover, the fact that both groups emphasise freedoms is (or at least should be) a pretty solid point of common ground to consider.

#####

Korimyr the Rat said:
Liberals want a government big enough to protect every "right" except the ones in the Constitution, and conservatives want a government small enough to fit in your bedroom.
Click to expand...

Funny :lamo
 
Conservatives derive every law from first principle, using only principle-based logic. The purpose of government is to maximize freedom for its citizens. That means conservatives base their philosophy and their vote on principle, not on "wants."

Virtually every post in this thread discusses what this person "wants" vs what that person "wants." "Want" has little to do with it for conservative's.

Liberal's base virtually every decision and every vote on what they "want." "You get the government you want," they say. And liberals want greater-good. Liberals believe they have a scale and can measure what policies produce the most good for the most people. Laudable Christian sentiment for one's personal life. Unfortunately, not good government and not the government the founder's built. Greater-good is the basis for socialism-progressivism-communism-fascism-liberalism. Most of the "isms."

Basing one's government on "wants" leads to bad outcomes every time; as has been shown hundreds of times throughout history. Nothing is stable, because the mob routinely changes its mind regarding what's "wanted" at any given time.

Not to say democratic votes don't have their place, rather they have their place within the severe restrictions of enumerated constitutional power. The constitution is a document limiting what the group can impose on the individual. At least, that's what the founder's wrote and what conservative's believe.

Liberal's criticize conservative's for the apparent paradox regarding gay-behavior, until one realizes the related sexual-corruptions (prostitution, polygamy, beastiality, etc.) are a package deal. Take or leave them all together. And illegal behavior isn't a civil-right for prostitutes and polygamists any more than it is for gay behavior. Likewise drugs. Liberal's and libertarian's argue conservative's miss the freedom-boat on addictive drugs, until one realizes addiction is the opposite of freedom and must therefore, be made illegal. Made illegal by principle, not by "want." Conservative's also face the trauma of living under laws they may not much like. Many conservatives don't like drinking, for example. Yet, drinking has been deemed part of freedom and conservative's are stuck with it. One quickly sees, it's not what conservative's "want," it's what freedom dictates.

Liberal's refuse to accept the simple logic of principle-based society, yet claim the other side is "uneducated." Liberal education consists of parroting liberal professors who give "A's" to the best parrots. Nevertheless, most liberals barely pass university and rarely in the hard-sciences. Liberals who travel internationally, outside protected tourist hotels, aren't liberals for long.

To summarize it into a single sentence: Liberals believe in greater-good, mob-rule, based on temporary and fleeting "wants" and conservative's believe in principled law derived from individual freedom.
 
Last edited:
Respecthelect said:
Conservatives derive every law from first principle, using only principle-based logic.
Click to expand...

And that first principle, loosely summarized, is as follows:

1 > There is a God and what he wants is not what the Israelite patriarchs thought he wanted (polygamy) and only partly what Moses thought he wanted and not what the prophets thought he wanted (monarchy) and only partly what Paul wanted and not really what Thomas Jefferson wanted: God wants what I say Thomas Jefferson wanted!

Once that first principle is sorted out, everything is gravy :)


Respecthelect said:
To summarize it into a single sentence: Liberals believe in greater-good, mob-rule, based on temporary and fleeting "wants" and conservative's believe in principled law derived from individual freedom.
Click to expand...

As one of those quoted in the OP, I suppose it's not surprising that you couldn't comprehend it.

Out of curiousity, do you believe that (for example) a handful of people owning virtually all the land, property and resources in an area or country limits the freedom of other people in that area or country?
 
Last edited:
Respecthelect said:
Conservatives derive every law from first principle, using only principle-based logic. The purpose of government is to maximize freedom for its citizens. That means conservatives base their philosophy and their vote on principle, not on "wants."

Virtually every post in this thread discusses what this person "wants" vs what that person "wants." "Want" has little to do with it for conservative's.

Liberal's base virtually every decision and every vote on what they "want." "You get the government you want," they say. And liberals want greater-good. Liberals believe they have a scale and can measure what policies produce the most good for the most people. Laudable Christian sentiment for one's personal life. Unfortunately, not good government and not the government the founder's built. Greater-good is the basis for socialism-progressivism-communism-fascism-liberalism. Most of the "isms."

Basing one's government on "wants" leads to bad outcomes every time; as has been shown hundreds of times throughout history. Nothing is stable, because the mob routinely changes its mind regarding what's "wanted" at any given time.

Not to say democratic votes don't have their place, rather they have their place within the severe restrictions of enumerated constitutional power. The constitution is a document limiting what the group can impose on the individual. At least, that's what the founder's wrote and what conservative's believe.

Liberal's criticize conservative's for the apparent paradox regarding gay-behavior, until one realizes the related sexual-corruptions (prostitution, polygamy, beastiality, etc.) are a package deal. Take or leave them all together. And illegal behavior isn't a civil-right for prostitutes and polygamists any more than it is for gay behavior. Likewise drugs. Liberal's and libertarian's argue conservative's miss the freedom-boat on addictive drugs, until one realizes addiction is the opposite of freedom and must therefore, be made illegal. Made illegal by principle, not by "want." Conservative's also face the trauma of living under laws they may not much like. Many conservatives don't like drinking, for example. Yet, drinking has been deemed part of freedom and conservative's are stuck with it. One quickly sees, it's not what conservative's "want," it's what freedom dictates.

Liberal's refuse to accept the simple logic of principle-based society, yet claim the other side is "uneducated." Liberal education consists of parroting liberal professors who give "A's" to the best parrots. Nevertheless, most liberals barely pass university and rarely in the hard-sciences. Liberals who travel internationally, outside protected tourist hotels, aren't liberals for long.

To summarize it into a single sentence: Liberals believe in greater-good, mob-rule, based on temporary and fleeting "wants" and conservative's believe in principled law derived from individual freedom.
Click to expand...

Once again, you display an I-wish-I-could-call-it-surprisingly complete lack of knowledge of what liberals actually believe.
 
Kobie said:
Once again, you display an I-wish-I-could-call-it-surprisingly complete lack of knowledge of what liberals actually believe.
Click to expand...

You deny liberal's want the maximum good for the most people?
 
Depends on when and where. Southerners had long prided themselves on the principles of small, limited government (with certain unquestioned exceptions), perhaps placing an emphasis on democratic principles (with certain unquestioned exceptions). Northerners had long prided themselves on big government conservatism, less interest in democracy, and more emphasis on the welfare of the corporation. Since the 19th century, however, certain changes came and went. The South still leads the way in its view of small and limited government, still largely champions itself for the common man (fitting certain criteria, of course), but has really taken a key interest in the welfare of the corporation. The North, however, remains devoted to bigger government (albeit, less than liberal factions in the north), is more accepting of democratic solutions for minority populations (perhaps less so than the liberals), and still enjoys corporate capitalism. There's continued caveats because of the changing of the terms liberal and conservative and how that interacts with regional liberalism, but northern and southern conservatism still have their continuities.

Now, perhaps my point of view came out in the above synopses, but I am certainly much more aligned to the Northern conservatism than I ever have been of Southern flavors. Hamilton gives me more interest than Jefferson, although neither man has won my heart.
 
Respecthelect said:
To summarize it into a single sentence: Liberals believe in greater-good, mob-rule, based on temporary and fleeting "wants" and conservative's believe in principled law derived from individual freedom.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting one could deliver the sermon you just did and not inherently notice your type of conservative's willingness to whore themselves to the democratic vote (your 'mob rule', if you will) in order to ensure that a proper society exists by crushing individual freedoms. A paradox is claimed to exist, because it does exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom