• 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!

Conservative vs. Liberal worldviews

A

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
48,140
Reaction score
25,389
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This thread is not meant to be inflammatory. It is meant to clarify some things that are unclear to me. I will admit that I am approaching this as someone with a liberal bias. But the reason I am opening this thread is so I can be open and learn more.

What exactly distinguishes "conservative" and "liberal" viewpoints? any given political candidate has certain rhetoric that appeals to followers of one or the other of these ideologies. But they may call themselves one thing and, when push comes to shove and they actually have to govern, do things which are the opposite. But speaking purely from the ideological standpoint, what is it that distinguishes these ideologies today?

In your answers, please try not to be vague, or use empty, inflammatory slogans, like that "Liberalism is just Marxist communism", or that "Conservatives just want to advance the interests of the top 1% on the backs of the rest of us". These are OK for political campaigns. But I would like this discussion to be a little more informative and sophisticated.

Personally, I don't see that there is too much difference. Let me summarize and you can correct, or just fine tune, what I write.

Liberals today are certainly not communists. Communism, in the classic Soviet style, has been tried in numerous countries in the world, and they have all had the same outcome: failure. Liberals today, whether in the US or the "socialist" Eureopean countries like England, Scandinavian nations, France, Germany, etc... all believe firmly in the free market. It seems the main difference comes down to a belief in the the idea of the necessity of a bare bottom safety net to catch those at the very bottom from hitting bare concrete when they hit tough times (ACA for the poor, Medicare, SS, school lunch for poor kids, welfare, help for new immigrants, etc...), whereas conservatives see any safety net at the bottom as a slippery slope which will ultimately lead to communist tyranny. They believe that the best way is to just leave everything free and up to nature.

Now, these conservatives seem to me to subdivide further into two groups. The first, the ones I shall call "compassionate conservatism", in honor of the phrase coined by, I believe, George W. Bush, have faith that if these safety nets are removed and everything is left free, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the free markets will ultimately create equal opportunities, fairness, and justice for all. The markets are perfectly self-correcting. There is faith that there will ultimately be "trickle down" of the wealth generated at the top to all. Any attempt to force safety nets will only lead to tyranny and burdensome regulations for those at the top, keeping them from generating money, and ultimately hurting those at the bottom as well. This was, I believe, the premise of Reaganomics.

But there are other conservatives, the ones I would call the "social Darwinists", who have no illusions about what happens when you remove those safety nets at the bottom. They know that individuals, or entire families, or even entire communities, will crash down into solid concrete and crack their skulls open there. And that's OK with them. This sort of survival of the fittest is what works in nature, where the strong survive and thrive, and the weak are killed and eaten for lunch. But that's what keeps nature healthy and strong. It is a natural mechanism to keep the weak from overpopulating and dragging down all society.

Is this an accurate summary? Feel free to comment. But please, try to keep it informative and cordial. Thanks.
 
I have found that a main difference if not the main one is that conservatives believe an individual's right to pursue her own happiness. Liberals, on the other hand, want the government to make the citizens live better.
 
ataraxia said:
This thread is not meant to be inflammatory. It is meant to clarify some things that are unclear to me. I will admit that I am approaching this as someone with a liberal bias. But the reason I am opening this thread is so I can be open and learn more.

What exactly distinguishes "conservative" and "liberal" viewpoints? any given political candidate has certain rhetoric that appeals to followers of one or the other of these ideologies. But they may call themselves one thing and, when push comes to shove and they actually have to govern, do things which are the opposite. But speaking purely from the ideological standpoint, what is it that distinguishes these ideologies today?

In your answers, please try not to be vague, or use empty, inflammatory slogans, like that "Liberalism is just Marxist communism", or that "Conservatives just want to advance the interests of the top 1% on the backs of the rest of us". These are OK for political campaigns. But I would like this discussion to be a little more informative and sophisticated.

Personally, I don't see that there is too much difference. Let me summarize and you can correct, or just fine tune, what I write.

Liberals today are certainly not communists. Communism, in the classic Soviet style, has been tried in numerous countries in the world, and they have all had the same outcome: failure. Liberals today, whether in the US or the "socialist" Eureopean countries like England, Scandinavian nations, France, Germany, etc... all believe firmly in the free market. It seems the main difference comes down to a belief in the the idea of the necessity of a bare bottom safety net to catch those at the very bottom from hitting bare concrete when they hit tough times (ACA for the poor, Medicare, SS, school lunch for poor kids, welfare, help for new immigrants, etc...), whereas conservatives see any safety net at the bottom as a slippery slope which will ultimately lead to communist tyranny. They believe that the best way is to just leave everything free and up to nature.

Now, these conservatives seem to me to subdivide further into two groups. The first, the ones I shall call "compassionate conservatism", in honor of the phrase coined by, I believe, George W. Bush, have faith that if these safety nets are removed and everything is left free, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the free markets will ultimately create equal opportunities, fairness, and justice for all. The markets are perfectly self-correcting. There is faith that there will ultimately be "trickle down" of the wealth generated at the top to all. Any attempt to force safety nets will only lead to tyranny and burdensome regulations for those at the top, keeping them from generating money, and ultimately hurting those at the bottom as well. This was, I believe, the premise of Reaganomics.

But there are other conservatives, the ones I would call the "social Darwinists", who have no illusions about what happens when you remove those safety nets at the bottom. They know that individuals, or entire families, or even entire communities, will crash down into solid concrete and crack their skulls open there. And that's OK with them. This sort of survival of the fittest is what works in nature, where the strong survive and thrive, and the weak are killed and eaten for lunch. But that's what keeps nature healthy and strong. It is a natural mechanism to keep the weak from overpopulating and dragging down all society.

Is this an accurate summary? Feel free to comment. But please, try to keep it informative and cordial. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Despite the political differences liberals and conservatives generally have the same world view. Both have the viewpoint of legal=moral and legislate to that effect.
 
For starters, liberal vs conservative is a vast oversimplification (albeit a common and popular one) of the political spectrum.


Under the banners of the two main political parties (R and D) you will find libertarians, socialists, environmentalists, constitutionalists, neo-conservatives, paleo-conservatives, progressives, and so on. You will find many individuals who mostly vote one side but who have some views associated with the other side.


As for conservatives, some are concerned more with maintaining cultural values and norms, some with economics and taxation, some with both. Some are more conservative than average, some less. If they have a single unifying factor, it is a distrust of Government in general, and a tendency to view Gov benevolence and utility with skepticism, and to assume powers assigned to Gov will likely be abused.

However this isn't 100% universal... there are big-Gov types under the conservative banner as well, differing from progressives in the details of WHAT they want Gov to manage and what to leave alone.


For some the dividing line boils down to one or two issues, often abortion or gun control or taxation or constitutional constructionism, or something else.



It isn't simple.
 
Goshin said:
For starters, liberal vs conservative is a vast oversimplification (albeit a common and popular one) of the political spectrum.


Under the banners of the two main political parties (R and D) you will find libertarians, socialists, environmentalists, constitutionalists, neo-conservatives, paleo-conservatives, progressives, and so on. You will find many individuals who mostly vote one side but who have some views associated with the other side.


As for conservatives, some are concerned more with maintaining cultural values and norms, some with economics and taxation, some with both. Some are more conservative than average, some less. If they have a single unifying factor, it is a distrust of Government in general, and a tendency to view Gov benevolence and utility with skepticism, and to assume powers assigned to Gov will likely be abused.

However this isn't 100% universal... there are big-Gov types under the conservative banner as well, differing from progressives in the details of WHAT they want Gov to manage and what to leave alone.


For some the dividing line boils down to one or two issues, often abortion or gun control or taxation or constitutional constructionism, or something else.



It isn't simple.
Click to expand...

I think you are mixing up individual political positions with the op's broader question of worldview
 
I have found that we have a lot of the same views. I support legalizing marijuana. I support environmental issues. I think the problem is how we go about solving the problems.

Take smoking in a bar. I do not smoke. Yet I am willing to compromise and have designated smoking areas while liberals are completely intolerant.

As a plumbing and heating person I know most bars require fresh air just because of the number of people in a given area. If you were to bring fresh air into the nonsmoking area and remove the stale air from the smoking area the non smokers will be up wind of the smokers. And as every hunter knows even animals with a much better sense of smell than humans cannot smell you if you are down wind of them.

There is a solution that allows for tolerance but most liberals are intolerant.
 
joG said:
I have found that a main difference if not the main one is that conservatives believe an individual's right to pursue her own happiness. Liberals, on the other hand, want the government to make the citizens live better.
Click to expand...

What do conservatives think should be done with a child who has, for example, lost access to healthcare, or to even food and shelter, since his/her family hit hard times? Is it government "making" them live better, or tyranny on the rest of society, if some formal systems are put in place to make sure they have a bare minimum safety net (ie, legal protection of their basic human dignity and human rights)?
 
Last edited:
"There is a solution that allows for tolerance but most liberals are intolerant. "

Are you saying that things like intolerance for gays rights is tolerant?

Are you saying that refusing to offer any safe haven, or any other solutions, for families escaping war in their home countries, is tolerant?
 
"Despite the political differences liberals and conservatives generally have the same world view. Both have the viewpoint of legal=moral and legislate to that effect. "

Well sure. Everyone does that. Even the Nazis believed that what they were doing was legal=moral and legislated that to that effect.
 
joG said:
I have found that a main difference if not the main one is that conservatives believe an individual's right to pursue her own happiness. Liberals, on the other hand, want the government to make the citizens live better.
Click to expand...

I liked your comment but I think you may not mean what I think you mean. Or it's exactly what you mean. Paul Wellstone, the great and late Congressman from my home state, said that the difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals believe that the government can be used to make people's lives better.

This guy was basically a young Bernie Sanders and even he never claimed that it was the government's job to make people's lives better. What he claimed is that we can give them the tools to make their lives better.

I believe it's reciprocal. The government allocates resources to the people who need them. Big three resources: health care, education and security nets (unemployment, etc.). In return, those of us who need these resources must give back by using them responsibly to become productive citizens that give back to society and make it greater.

Conservatives believe that the founders did not have this in mind for the country and that those in need of help will be privately taken care of or pull themselves up by the old boot straps. Frankly, I think that people are way too selfish for that to work and it hasn't worked. The solution is reduction and optimization of entitlements and preventing lobbyists, bureaucrats and billionaires from owning the system. Allowing such an environment creates stupidity to a degree that cannot be put into words.
 
ataraxia said:
What do conservatives think should be done with a child who has, for example, lost access to healthcare, or to even food and shelter, since his/her family hit hard times? Is it government "making" them live better, or tyranny on the rest of society, if some formal systems are put in place to make sure they have a bare minimum safety net (ie, legal protection of their basic human dignity and human rights)?
Click to expand...

It will depend on the subgroup of conservative and the exact circumstances of the "hit hard times". But it would be fully consistent with most conservative strains of thought to use instruments to limit external costs to an optimum. Discontents tend to create external costs. Children that are not socialized and educated properly reduce society's level of possible general welfare. Those criteria allow an optimal set of rules by sociological, political and economic standards.
 
Mustachio said:
Conservatives believe that the founders did not have this in mind for the country and that those in need of help will be privately taken care of or pull themselves up by the old boot straps. Frankly, I think that people are way too selfish for that to work and it hasn't worked.
Click to expand...

Yes. I believe that in the same way that in the late 20th century Soviet communism showed that communism does not work, The US and western Europe had shown much earlier that the pure free markets don't work. When? I would point to the late 19th century/early 20th centuries- the "gilded age". You had "robber barons" who, free of any antitrust laws, child labor laws, workplace safety laws and accountability, etc.... were starting to make more money than the entire GNP of entire nations. In the meantime, they were hiring 8 and 9 year olds to work 80 hour weeks with dangerous heavy factory equipment and hazardous chemicals. Sure a lot of wealth was being generated. But there was no 'Trickle down'. The income of the workers was staying flat, and they were living in abject poverty.

This increasing disparity between the extremes of wealth and poverty really hit a crisis point by the 1890s, to the point that it came to be known as "the social problem" in Europe. Marxist parties in Europe were making surprisingly huge gains in the polls, and were threatening to make real Marx's promise of a violent proletariat revolution. It was only when some commonsense measures, like child labor laws, minimum wage laws, workplace safety laws, etc... were enacted, that the crisis was averted.

So in that way, not only is modern liberalism NOT the same thing as Soviet communism, it is what saved capitalism from it. But unfortunately, the misunderstanding runs strong in today's world. Here is a funny example of this from someone who apparently had enough credentials to be able to write a CNN opinion piece:

Socialism should die with Castro (Opinion) - CNN.com
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Children that are not socialized and educated properly reduce society's level of possible general welfare.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what this means. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems it should be the opposite: Shouldn't it be "Children that ARE socialized and educated properly reduce society's level of possible general welfare"?
 
ataraxia said:
Are you saying that things like intolerance for gays rights is tolerant?
Click to expand...

I believe the government should treat gays the same as anyone else. I worked for a lot of gay people in the Montrose section of Houston. They made up a 3rd of my customer base and were some of my best customers. We never had a problem and we respected each others life styles. I have a problem with government getting involved in marriage. As a Catholic marriage is sacrament the same as baptism. The government can no marry me than baptize me. I do not want nor need government involved in my religion or its sacraments.

ataraxia said:
Are you saying that refusing to offer any safe haven, or any other solutions, for families escaping war in their home countries, is tolerant?
Click to expand...

I am saying when the war comes here where are they going to run. Running is not the answer. I as well as many members of my family are willing to die for our freedom and safety as well as that of other people around the world. They need to stop running from their problems and become willing to fight and die for what they believe. Otherwise when the problems they are running from come here "and they will" then where will they run. Running is never the answer.
 
ataraxia said:
*snip for brevity*
Click to expand...
Personally, I do not think there are any universal distinguishing characteristics.
There are many flavors of "conservatism", just as there are many flavors of "liberals".

Generally speaking, I think conservatives tend to have a possibly idealistic/unrealistic view of how independent and unrestricted the individual should be, without taking into account the problems which WILL occur when, inevitably, someone abuses the system.

Generally speaking, I think liberals tend to have a possibly idealistic/unrealistic idea of how helpful government programs to support the population can be, without taking into account the problems which WILL occur when, inevitably, someone abuses the system.


Personally, I think we need to have the maximum possible freedom for every entity involved, and that includes individuals, groups, and corporations.
Yet I think the level of freedom corporations currently have is too high, especially in that they're allowed to fund politicians.

Some restrictions are unreasonable, and some are too lenient.
There's a balance somewhere, for everything, between too many/harsh restrictions and too few/gentle. And I frankly don't think anyone knows where that balance is.
 
Crovax said:
I think you are mixing up individual political positions with the op's broader question of worldview
Click to expand...



Perhaps. One's political positions tend to result from one's world-view though, no?



If I had to sum up the difference in a sound-bite sized packet, it might go something like this...


"Liberals" tend to believe in the positive outcomes of collective efforts such as via government.


"Conservatives" tend to believe in the positive outcomes of individual efforts or free-market organizations (ie business).


One could add that many liberals are more comfortable with major change, with wide diversity in values and norms, and with intellectual elitism.

Similarly, more conservatives are more comfortable with tradition and stability, shared values and norms, and with market-driven elitism (ie cream rises to the top).


Each side tends to have a desire to impose its version of "morality" (whether that notion is based in religion/tradition or ideological/philosophical grounds) on those who do not wish to be so constrained. Each side sees their own version as "freedom" and the other's version as "oppression".


This conflict makes it very hard for the two to co-exist.
 
I am reminded of on old story that shows the philosophical difference, as both sides share the need to help others.

Once a man found a pit full of people. They were clearly in poor health and hungry. The man called out to others. "Bring food and water." He also sent for a doctor. Within days, the man had established a system that would ensure the people in the pit were well fed and cared for. He was very proud of his accomplishment and had the admiration of others.

Another man found another pit full of people. They were clearly in poor health and hungry. The man called out to others. "Bring ladders."

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. I believe that in the same way that in the late 20th century Soviet communism showed that communism does not work, The US and western Europe had shown much earlier that the pure free markets don't work. When? I would point to the late 19th century/early 20th centuries- the "gilded age". You had "robber barons" who, free of any antitrust laws, child labor laws, workplace safety laws and accountability, etc.... were starting to make more money than the entire GNP of entire nations. In the meantime, they were hiring 8 and 9 year olds to work 80 hour weeks with dangerous heavy factory equipment and hazardous chemicals. Sure a lot of wealth was being generated. But there was no 'Trickle down'. The income of the workers was staying flat, and they were living in abject poverty.

This increasing disparity between the extremes of wealth and poverty really hit a crisis point by the 1890s, to the point that it came to be known as "the social problem" in Europe. Marxist parties in Europe were making surprisingly huge gains in the polls, and were threatening to make real Marx's promise of a violent proletariat revolution.
Click to expand...

When you have people acting out and often overcompensating for the issues they are facing, they themselves are rarely the problem. The sad thing is the inability of the Trump conservatives to even consider that policy and rhetoric may be to blame. The best thing we can do is give people an opportunity to be productive and thriving members of society, or else this country will slip into a pretty depressing place that will probably look like Biff's America in Back to the Future 2.

But I think Trump is basically Biff, so maybe we're only a month away from that dystopian vision :)
 
I like to think of the Liberal vs Conservative argument in a more practical way. Liberals tend to believe that government can provide a lot for people with any number of programs, and Conservatives tend to either trust private businesses to provide those things more effectively or believe in a more strict personal responsibility stance. I don't like to define the two with issues like gun control or abortion because even if those are widely agreed upon in each group they don't really define what a Liberal or Conservative is.
 
Marriage carries a lot of legal/property rights. These are laws made and enforced by government. Are you saying you don't want that?
 
ataraxia said:
Marriage carries a lot of legal/property rights. These are laws made and enforced by government. Are you saying you don't want that?
Click to expand...



Could be handled by contract between those involved.
 
ataraxia said:
This thread is not meant to be inflammatory. It is meant to clarify some things that are unclear to me. I will admit that I am approaching this as someone with a liberal bias. But the reason I am opening this thread is so I can be open and learn more.

What exactly distinguishes "conservative" and "liberal" viewpoints? any given political candidate has certain rhetoric that appeals to followers of one or the other of these ideologies. But they may call themselves one thing and, when push comes to shove and they actually have to govern, do things which are the opposite. But speaking purely from the ideological standpoint, what is it that distinguishes these ideologies today?

In your answers, please try not to be vague, or use empty, inflammatory slogans, like that "Liberalism is just Marxist communism", or that "Conservatives just want to advance the interests of the top 1% on the backs of the rest of us". These are OK for political campaigns. But I would like this discussion to be a little more informative and sophisticated.

Personally, I don't see that there is too much difference. Let me summarize and you can correct, or just fine tune, what I write.

Liberals today are certainly not communists. Communism, in the classic Soviet style, has been tried in numerous countries in the world, and they have all had the same outcome: failure. Liberals today, whether in the US or the "socialist" Eureopean countries like England, Scandinavian nations, France, Germany, etc... all believe firmly in the free market. It seems the main difference comes down to a belief in the the idea of the necessity of a bare bottom safety net to catch those at the very bottom from hitting bare concrete when they hit tough times (ACA for the poor, Medicare, SS, school lunch for poor kids, welfare, help for new immigrants, etc...), whereas conservatives see any safety net at the bottom as a slippery slope which will ultimately lead to communist tyranny. They believe that the best way is to just leave everything free and up to nature.

Now, these conservatives seem to me to subdivide further into two groups. The first, the ones I shall call "compassionate conservatism", in honor of the phrase coined by, I believe, George W. Bush, have faith that if these safety nets are removed and everything is left free, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of the free markets will ultimately create equal opportunities, fairness, and justice for all. The markets are perfectly self-correcting. There is faith that there will ultimately be "trickle down" of the wealth generated at the top to all. Any attempt to force safety nets will only lead to tyranny and burdensome regulations for those at the top, keeping them from generating money, and ultimately hurting those at the bottom as well. This was, I believe, the premise of Reaganomics.

But there are other conservatives, the ones I would call the "social Darwinists", who have no illusions about what happens when you remove those safety nets at the bottom. They know that individuals, or entire families, or even entire communities, will crash down into solid concrete and crack their skulls open there. And that's OK with them. This sort of survival of the fittest is what works in nature, where the strong survive and thrive, and the weak are killed and eaten for lunch. But that's what keeps nature healthy and strong. It is a natural mechanism to keep the weak from overpopulating and dragging down all society.

Is this an accurate summary? Feel free to comment. But please, try to keep it informative and cordial. Thanks.
Click to expand...

In the very simplest terms as these are understood in modern day America:

Liberalism/progressivism/statism/leftism believes that the government should be empowered to right wrongs, even out inequalities, and control society so that it will be more as it should be.

Conservatism/libertarianism(little "l")/classical liberalism believes that the government should do absolutely nothing that the Constitution did not intend for it to do and that people are overall much better off when they enjoy liberty to think what they think, believe what they believe, live their lives as they choose to live, and order their societies as they wish them to be.
 
AlbqOwl said:
In the very simplest terms as these are understood in modern day America:

Liberalism/progressivism/statism/leftism believes that the government should be empowered to right wrongs, even out inequalities, and control society so that it will be more as it should be.

Conservatism/libertarianism(little "l")/classical liberalism believes that the government should do absolutely nothing that the Constitution did not intend for it to do and that people are overall much better off when they enjoy liberty to think what they think, believe what they believe, live their lives as they choose to live, and order their societies as they wish them to be.
Click to expand...

Ugh. You can't be serious. I've never read more peurile, idiotic drivel in my entire life.
 
ataraxia said:
This thread is not meant to be inflammatory. It is meant to clarify some things that are unclear to me. I will admit that I am approaching this as someone with a liberal bias. But the reason I am opening this thread is so I can be open and learn more.

What exactly distinguishes "conservative" and "liberal" viewpoints? any given political candidate has certain rhetoric that appeals to followers of one or the other of these ideologies. But they may call themselves one thing and, when push comes to shove and they actually have to govern, do things which are the opposite. But speaking purely from the ideological standpoint, what is it that distinguishes these ideologies today?
Click to expand...

It is very simple and obvious. Liberals believe that government involvement in society is mostly positive and they want more government. Conservatives believe that government involvement in society is mostly negative and they want less government. That is why society is so polarized. It isn't really about issues. It is about the power of government.
 
AlbqOwl said:
In the very simplest terms as these are understood in modern day America:

Liberalism/progressivism/statism/leftism believes that the government should be empowered to right wrongs, even out inequalities, and control society so that it will be more as it should be.

Conservatism/libertarianism(little "l")/classical liberalism believes that the government should do absolutely nothing that the Constitution did not intend for it to do and that people are overall much better off when they enjoy liberty to think what they think, believe what they believe, live their lives as they choose to live, and order their societies as they wish them to be.
Click to expand...

Ummm, they do that by using GOVERNMENT to enforce the bolded part. So spare us your drivel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom