• 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, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian - why do you label yourself one of these?

Howard the Duck said:
And yet, 60 million every time. Even the Russians knew that the only game in town is suppression of the Democratic vote, which btw, fluctuates substantially.
Click to expand...

Paul Weyrich, Lee Atwater, Russians, Kochs, Mercers, you name it.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You had me in the bolded part. Agreed on those conservative values.
Conservatism however, does not evaluate new ideas at all.
Conservatism defends traditional ideas and criticizes new ideas through the lens of history.
That is not altogether a bad thing, it is an inoculation against chaos and disruption.
Progressivism does indeed evaluate new ideas through the lens of posterity but this is where conservative criticisms can be helpful TO progressives, provided that conservatives are willing to accept what you referred to as "good and necessary change".
I am confident that there are still many conservatives who do. Most of them however, are not in power right now, today.

Flipping through Popular Science is not a means of evaluating progressivism, and science is seldom right on the first go around, as any scientist will tell you.
Take radio, for example.
Lee DeForest knew that his audion tube could modulate RF energy via audio waveforms, but he was still convinced that the RF energy was traveling through something called "the ether" because science wasn't sure that ordinary AIR molecules could respond to radio frequency energy.
No one knew what "the ether" was, they were just somewhat certain that it existed, because it simply had to, in their minds.
Once scientists were willing to admit that they didn't even know what the ether really was, they were able to set about proving or disproving that it was indeed simple air molecules being stimulated, and that "ether" did not exist as an electromagnetic medium. Thus they revised their theory and proved it to be of sound foundation.
But radio was already working long before these questions were settled by science!

Let us not discount bold exploratory moves and ideas. Rather, let us be scientists in our political forays, and treat issues the way science treats scientific theory. Together, conservatives and liberals can craft good policy, based on sound and proven theory.
Apart, we can only craft offensive and defensive dogma.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, conservatism doesn't necessarily defend the status quo any more than progressivism necessarily challenges it. Progressives defend the status quo as well, example: Pro-Abortion law is the status quo today, conservatives seek to change that, progressives seek to defend that.

Also, using science as the paradigm, there are far more failed theories than there are successful ones, we just remember the ones that were correct. As such, using that analogy, conservatism plays the roll of gatekeeper protecting current knowledge from the whims of errant ideology. Just because conservatism challenges good ideas as much as it challenges bad doesn't make the process bad, it means it keeps a lot of bull**** out.
 
jmotivator said:
Actually, no, conservatism doesn't necessarily defend the status quo any more than progressivism necessarily challenges it. Progressives defend the status quo as well, example: Pro-Abortion law is the status quo today, conservatives seek to change that, progressives seek to defend that.

Also, using science as the paradigm, there are far more failed theories than there are successful ones, we just remember the ones that were correct. As such, using that analogy, conservatism plays the roll of gatekeeper protecting current knowledge from the whims of errant ideology. Just because conservatism challenges good ideas as much as it challenges bad doesn't make the process bad, it means it keeps a lot of bull**** out.
Click to expand...

"As such, using that analogy, conservatism plays the roll of gatekeeper protecting current knowledge from the whims of errant ideology."

That's another way of saying "defending traditional ideas", or:

"If ain't broke, don't fix it".

Please re-read what I wrote.
 
Last edited:
I label myself a libertarian b/c I have much more libertarian views. I would like a much smaller limited government, focus on individual liberties, and a more free market w/o 50,000 pages of regulation.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
"As such, using that analogy, conservatism plays the roll of gatekeeper protecting current knowledge from the whims of errant ideology."

That's another way of saying "defending traditional ideas", or:

"If ain't broke, don't fix it".

Please re-read what I wrote.
Click to expand...

I did read what you wrote, you are ignoring my point that what conservatives defend isn't always the status quo.

There are plenty of things that conservatives see as broken that they want to change.
 
jmotivator said:
I did read what you wrote, you are ignoring my point that what conservatives defend isn't always the status quo.
Click to expand...

No I would never ignore that. Of course what they defend isn't always the status quo.
For Pete's sake, can we put aside the hidebound mistrust and agree that we're talking in generalities?
I can if you can. I understand that there are outliers and variants in everything.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
No I would never ignore that. Of course what they defend isn't always the status quo.
For Pete's sake, can we put aside the hidebound mistrust and agree that we're talking in generalities?
I can if you can. I understand that there are outliers and variants in everything.
Click to expand...

But that is the point, your chosen generality was that "Conservatism however, does not evaluate new ideas at all." which is plainly false.
 
AGENT J said:
Im none of that you listed, Im an Independent and will be to my dying day. to me its the only thing that is logical for my views and thinking in general. Every NORMAL righty or lefty I know (the majority of both) doesnt really fit the stereotypical description of right or left. The majority seem like independents to me but they hold on to some other title for whatever reason.

im my experience its only the nutters that fit the stereotype.
Click to expand...
Notice I didn't list party names, I listed ideologies. There is a distinct difference between political party support and ideology. I'm not a member of any party, nor do I contribute to any or any candidate. Independents can run the ideological gamut, IMHO.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Good for you! Congrats!

And I'll consider you one, too, if your voting history supports it. Sadly for the vast majority of self reporting independents their voting histories don't show any independence at all, but rather they demonstrate straight line party behavior.
Click to expand...

I don't want to derail the topic, but there's one aside about independents that I should mention:

When you're an independent, and you live in a state with a long history of registered voters of one party greatly outnumbering those in the other, it gets difficult to find good candidates outside the dominant party. That has nothing to do with partisanship:

You see, in the dominant party, the bar is set extremely high in the primaries, because the chances of winning are so good. This fact tends to attract the smartest and most connected politicians to that party. Not that you never see good candidates in the other party, but unfortunately they are much more rare.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
It's a little disingenuous for anyone to describe themselves as "classical" liberals or conservatives when the classical ideologies are so different from what they are today.

In the U.S. modern liberalism refers to the movements than began in the very early 20th century, where modern conservatism didn't really exist until after WWII. Those who would describe themselves as liberals or conservatives should speak in terms of those definitions.
Click to expand...
I use the "classic liberal" label to differentiate from those who claim it today. Today's left is dominated by progressivism although some seem to avoid that term. To me the ideas behind classic liberalism are more import that whatever label someone wants to hang on them.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I don't want to derail the topic, but there's one aside about independents that I should mention:

When you're an independent, and you live in a state with a long history of registered voters of one party greatly outnumbering those in the other, it gets difficult to find good candidates outside the dominant party. That has nothing to do with partisanship:

You see, in the dominant party, the bar is set extremely high in the primaries, because the chances of winning are so good. This fact tends to attract the smartest and most connected politicians to that party. Not that you never see good candidates in the other party, but unfortunately they are much more rare.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that real independents exist. I guess my point is that most internet independents are partisans who don't want to have to defend their voting histories.

Jmho.
 
Bullseye said:
I use the "classic liberal" label to differentiate from those who claim it today. Today's left is dominated by progressivism although some seem to avoid that term. To me the ideas behind classic liberalism are more import that whatever label someone wants to hang on them.
Click to expand...

Ideas are always more significant than a label, but it's never good to use a label that causes confusion among so many.
 
Bullseye said:
1.) Notice I didn't list party names, I listed ideologies. There is a distinct difference between political party support and ideology. I'm not a member of any party, nor do I contribute to any or any candidate.
2.) Independents can run the ideological gamut, IMHO.
Click to expand...

1.) Didn't say you listed any parties nor did I? you mentioned lean, typically thats right and left.
2.) maybe but not me, stereotypically no ideology fits me.

Ill just keep being independent because im me and ive never seen a list i conform too.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You had me in the bolded part. Agreed on those conservative values.
Conservatism however, does not evaluate new ideas at all.
Conservatism defends traditional ideas and criticizes new ideas through the lens of history.
That is not altogether a bad thing, it is an inoculation against chaos and disruption.
Progressivism does indeed evaluate new ideas through the lens of posterity but this is where conservative criticisms can be helpful TO progressives, provided that conservatives are willing to accept what you referred to as "good and necessary change".
I am confident that there are still many conservatives who do. Most of them however, are not in power right now, today.

Flipping through Popular Science is not a means of evaluating progressivism, and science is seldom right on the first go around, as any scientist will tell you.
Take radio, for example.
Lee DeForest knew that his audion tube could modulate RF energy via audio waveforms, but he was still convinced that the RF energy was traveling through something called "the ether" because science wasn't sure that ordinary AIR molecules could respond to radio frequency energy.
No one knew what "the ether" was, they were just somewhat certain that it existed, because it simply had to, in their minds.
Once scientists were willing to admit that they didn't even know what the ether really was, they were able to set about proving or disproving that it was indeed simple air molecules being stimulated, and that "ether" did not exist as an electromagnetic medium. Thus they revised their theory and proved it to be of sound foundation.
But radio was already working long before these questions were settled by science!

Let us not discount bold exploratory moves and ideas. Rather, let us be scientists in our political forays, and treat issues the way science treats scientific theory. Together, conservatives and liberals can craft good policy, based on sound and proven theory.
Apart, we can only craft offensive and defensive dogma.
Click to expand...
This post makes excellent sense. I think the conflict may come however from the "good and necessary" change concept. Good and necessary by what, or whose, definition? Do we need to protect our citizens from every possible inconvenience, hardship or unfortunate circumstance or do we provide them with the tools for dealing with them on their own? How deeply do we dig into "for their own good" style of regulation?
 
jmotivator said:
But that is the point, your chosen generality was that "Conservatism however, does not evaluate new ideas at all." which is plainly false.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, pardon me.
"Conservatism however, does not normally evaluate new ideas as much as it generally tends to defend traditional ones."

That better?
 
Bullseye said:
This post makes excellent sense. I think the conflict may come however from the "good and necessary" change concept. Good and necessary by what, or whose, definition? Do we need to protect our citizens from every possible inconvenience, hardship or unfortunate circumstance or do we provide them with the tools for dealing with them on their own? How deeply do we dig into "for their own good" style of regulation?
Click to expand...

Oh that is the 64 thousand dollar question each and every time something comes up.
I have no problem with conservatives and liberals fighting like cats and dogs. That's as American as it gets.
The important thing is that both sides agree that the other side loves this country just as much, even if they do so differently, and at the end of the day, not everyone gets everything they want, but reasoned compromise can make sure that what we do arrive at serves the largest number of people the best way possible.
Party over country. That involves a modicum of mutual respect and a certain amount of mutual trust.
Try whiskey and cigars, used to work okay for the old guys.

DO WE need to protect our citizens from everything? Another excellent question. I always insist on annoying people by telling them to stop demanding 100 % guarantees...on ANYTHING.
There's no such thing, anywhere in history, anywhere in the universe.
But we still need to make a valid effort to do the best we can.
We're the greatest nation on Earth, so we should be able to do pretty well by our people when needed.
Sometimes that means providing the tools so that they can deal with it on their own, sometimes it means Uncle Sam helps out with a bit of the heavy lifting so that they "can deal with THE REST of it on their own".

JeffHNegan.jpg
 
Howard the Duck said:
Good for you. I asked last week how many people on this forum were Republicans. 12 said they were.

Does this forum read like there are only 12 republicans posting here?
Click to expand...

Not all Republicans are conservatives, some are moderates. Not all conservatives or classical liberals are Republicans. That's how it reads to me.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh that is the 64 thousand dollar question each and every time something comes up.
I have no problem with conservatives and liberals fighting like cats and dogs. That's as American as it gets.
The important thing is that both sides agree that the other side loves this country just as much, even if they do so differently, and at the end of the day, not everyone gets everything they want, but reasoned compromise can make sure that what we do arrive at serves the largest number of people the best way possible.
Party over country. That involves a modicum of mutual respect and a certain amount of mutual trust.
Try whiskey and cigars, used to work okay for the old guys.

DO WE need to protect our citizens from everything? Another excellent question. I always insist on annoying people by telling them to stop demanding 100 % guarantees...on ANYTHING.
There's no such thing, anywhere in history, anywhere in the universe.
But we still need to make a valid effort to do the best we can.
We're the greatest nation on Earth, so we should be able to do pretty well by our people when needed.
Sometimes that means providing the tools so that they can deal with it on their own, sometimes it means Uncle Sam helps out with a bit of the heavy lifting so that they "can deal with THE REST of it on their own".

View attachment 67234429
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Excuse me, pardon me.
"Conservatism however, does not normally evaluate new ideas as much as it generally tends to defend traditional ones."

That better?
Click to expand...

Closer, but still not quote right, really. As I pointed out earlier, there are far more bad ideas than there are good ideas, and shooting down bad ideas is not a defense of the tradition as much as it is a comment on the the new idea. Does that make sense?

As sort of an example of the idea: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” is both Conservative, and not really defending the status quo. Does that make it more clear?
 
jmotivator said:
Closer, but still not quote right, really. As I pointed out earlier, there are far more bad ideas than there are good ideas, and shooting down bad ideas is not a defense of the tradition as much as it is a comment on the the new idea. Does that make sense?

As sort of an example of the idea: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” is both Conservative, and not really defending the status quo. Does that make it more clear?
Click to expand...

Well, democracy IS INDEED the very worst form of government except for all the others, which is why democracies never function as a pure construct, but are instead always buffered by some form of republic, sometimes even a constitutional one.
Democracy is like oxygen. No mammal can survive in an atmosphere of pure oxygen, so that "air" must exist as a compound of inert gases with oxygen as a 21% ingredient.

As goes the air we breathe, so goes democracy in our constitutional republic. :)
I applaud the conservative notion of "shooting down bad ideas", even when conservatives get too dogmatic in doing so.
It's important, and it's necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom