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

When you sign up here on Debate Politics you have an opportunity to assign a "lean" value - Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian, for example. So I'm curious for those that chose one, what made you make that choice.

When most people ask me if I'm liberal or conservative I tell them I'm a Classic Liberal/ conservatarian. I chose "Libertarian - right" on DP.

to me classic liberalism focuses on free markets, low regulation and maximum personal freedom and responsibility; almost the opposite of what many of today's liberals espouse. This leads into the libertarian part - I think we should be allowed to make our own life choice with as little government interference as possible providing we don't negative impact others or become a menace to society. The conservative part is based on a strong defense and an engaged foreign policy and a desire for strong fiscal management.

I don't align blindly with an political party; I don't think there's a pure conservative in the Republican party, nor a pure liberal/progressive in the Dems. Political parties are not ideological discussion groups - they're power seekers who embrace or eschew ideological tenets as necessary to get or maintain power.

This is way condensed; I could probably go on and on about all of the above.

I'm looking forward to hearing others take on this subject.

I identify as liberal because for the most part, I lean towards the left. Despite holding some conservative views. And I don't align with party either, and that's why I don't identify as a Democrat.

Bullseye said:

When you sign up here on Debate Politics you have an opportunity to assign a "lean" value - Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian, for example. So I'm curious for those that chose one, what made you make that choice.

When most people ask me if I'm liberal or conservative I tell them I'm a Classic Liberal/ conservatarian. I chose "Libertarian - right" on DP.

to me classic liberalism focuses on free markets, low regulation and maximum personal freedom and responsibility; almost the opposite of what many of today's liberals espouse. This leads into the libertarian part - I think we should be allowed to make our own life choice with as little government interference as possible providing we don't negative impact others or become a menace to society. The conservative part is based on a strong defense and an engaged foreign policy and a desire for strong fiscal management.

I don't align blindly with an political party; I don't think there's a pure conservative in the Republican party, nor a pure liberal/progressive in the Dems. Political parties are not ideological discussion groups - they're power seekers who embrace or eschew ideological tenets as necessary to get or maintain power.

This is way condensed; I could probably go on and on about all of the above.

I'm looking forward to hearing others take on this subject.

Click to expand...

I too identify as a classical liberal or libertarian (small "L"). I wish DP would offer that option, but Libertarian with a capital "L" even on the right is more authoritarian than I am comfortable with even though they support many concepts I can agree with. (Also some that I cannot agree with.)

So finally I just chose "Conservative" as within the context of modern American conservative, that is the closest thing to an apolitical libertarian (small "L") that is available to choose from. "Other" just seems so wishy washy somehow.

Classical liberals however promote:
--a small central government with constitutionally authorized authority strictly limited to providing the common defense, enforcing such laws and regulation as is necessary to secure unalienable rights, promote the general welfare, and allow the various states to operate as one cohesive nation without doing violence to each other.

--The various states and the people otherwise have complete liberty to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to be.

I identify as conservative because I ascribe to the basic tenets of conservatism, such that change in not inherently good, status quo is not inherently bad, and there is a massive amount of accumulated wisdom in any human system that should not be cast aside purely on the assumption that new is better.

I like to say that conservatism evaluates new ideas through the lens of history while progressivism evaluates new ideas through the lens of posterity. As such, many progressive policies are doomed to fail as they require the assumption of unknowables. Flip through the pages of an old Popular Science and you see how well progressive though is as knowing the furture. That isn't to say that the two sides aren't essential to a healthy civilization... every so often there is a good and necessary change that likely had it's origin in a progressive mind... but at the same time, most of the worst of human history started there too.

AlbqOwl said:

I too identify as a classical liberal or libertarian (small "L"). I wish DP would offer that option, but Libertarian with a capital "L" even on the right is more authoritarian than I am comfortable with even though they support many concepts I can agree with. (Also some that I cannot agree with.)

So finally I just chose "Conservative" as within the context of modern American conservative, that is the closest thing to an apolitical libertarian (small "L") that is available to choose from. "Other" just seems so wishy washy somehow.

Classical liberals however promote:
--a small central government with constitutionally authorized authority strictly limited to providing the common defense, enforcing such laws and regulation as is necessary to secure unalienable rights, promote the general welfare, and allow the various states to operate as one cohesive nation without doing violence to each other.

--The various states and the people otherwise have complete liberty to form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to be.

Click to expand...

I'm like you - no single label works across the board for me. I choose who to vote for based on how their views align with my own on issues I find most important. I reluctantly voted for Trump because I thought his business and economic policies more likely, but not guaranteed to get the economy going. My view is I hired him to do a job, not to become my best bud.

jmotivator said:

I identify as conservative because I ascribe to the basic tenets of conservatism, such that change in not inherently good, status quo is not inherently bad, and there is a massive amount of accumulated wisdom in any human system that should not be cast aside purely on the assumption that new is better.

I like to say that conservatism evaluates new ideas through the lens of history while progressivism evaluates new ideas through the lens of posterity. As such, many progressive policies are doomed to fail as they require the assumption of unknowables. Flip through the pages of an old Popular Science and you see how well progressive though is as knowing the furture. That isn't to say that the two sides aren't essential to a healthy civilization... every so often there is a good and necessary change that likely had it's origin in a progressive mind... but at the same time, most of the worst of human history started there too.

Click to expand...

Very well put. I like the "change is not necessarily good, nor status quo necessarily bad. I dislike the mindset of some that every time something bad happens gaggles of people go "we gotta do SOMETHING" even though that something is ill-defined.

Thanks for your input.

I've always considered myself liberal, always vote (if I vote at all) for a Liberal Party candidate. I think I have a pretty good handle on what 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean but I wasn't here for very long before I realized that what I call liberal and what many others here call liberal are very different things.
Sticking to my guns though. I'm a liberal.

Bullseye said:

When you sign up here on Debate Politics you have an opportunity to assign a "lean" value - Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian, for example. So I'm curious for those that chose one, what made you make that choice.

When most people ask me if I'm liberal or conservative I tell them I'm a Classic Liberal/ conservatarian. I chose "Libertarian - right" on DP.

to me classic liberalism focuses on free markets, low regulation and maximum personal freedom and responsibility; almost the opposite of what many of today's liberals espouse. This leads into the libertarian part - I think we should be allowed to make our own life choice with as little government interference as possible providing we don't negative impact others or become a menace to society. The conservative part is based on a strong defense and an engaged foreign policy and a desire for strong fiscal management.

I don't align blindly with an political party; I don't think there's a pure conservative in the Republican party, nor a pure liberal/progressive in the Dems. Political parties are not ideological discussion groups - they're power seekers who embrace or eschew ideological tenets as necessary to get or maintain power.

This is way condensed; I could probably go on and on about all of the above.

I'm looking forward to hearing others take on this subject.

Click to expand...

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. That used to make me a Reagan Republican. I don't know what it is anymore.

I chose "Moderate" because I'm not strongly in either court on most issues.

Bullseye said:

When you sign up here on Debate Politics you have an opportunity to assign a "lean" value - Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian, for example. So I'm curious for those that chose one, what made you make that choice.

When most people ask me if I'm liberal or conservative I tell them I'm a Classic Liberal/ conservatarian. I chose "Libertarian - right" on DP.

to me classic liberalism focuses on free markets, low regulation and maximum personal freedom and responsibility; almost the opposite of what many of today's liberals espouse. This leads into the libertarian part - I think we should be allowed to make our own life choice with as little government interference as possible providing we don't negative impact others or become a menace to society. The conservative part is based on a strong defense and an engaged foreign policy and a desire for strong fiscal management.

I don't align blindly with an political party; I don't think there's a pure conservative in the Republican party, nor a pure liberal/progressive in the Dems. Political parties are not ideological discussion groups - they're power seekers who embrace or eschew ideological tenets as necessary to get or maintain power.

This is way condensed; I could probably go on and on about all of the above.

I'm looking forward to hearing others take on this subject.

Click to expand...

The conservative/liberal lean thing means absolutely nothing anymore since the shady and deceptive democrats want to parade themselves as "liberals" when they are nothing of the sort. You can't be liberal while lobbying to get rid of the 1st and 2nd amendments. Well, actually, they don't want to completely get rid of the 1st amendment, they just want to choose who can or cannot exercise this right - because they're so liberal.

Centrist. I do so because while I take positions to the right and left, I am uncomfortable with conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, communists, and so on. I am dispositionally a conservative Democrat and a liberal Republican. I also prefer bi-partisan legislating and administrative rule making.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Bullseye said:

When you sign up here on Debate Politics you have an opportunity to assign a "lean" value - Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian, for example. So I'm curious for those that chose one, what made you make that choice.

When most people ask me if I'm liberal or conservative I tell them I'm a Classic Liberal/ conservatarian. I chose "Libertarian - right" on DP.

to me classic liberalism focuses on free markets, low regulation and maximum personal freedom and responsibility; almost the opposite of what many of today's liberals espouse. This leads into the libertarian part - I think we should be allowed to make our own life choice with as little government interference as possible providing we don't negative impact others or become a menace to society. The conservative part is based on a strong defense and an engaged foreign policy and a desire for strong fiscal management.

I don't align blindly with an political party; I don't think there's a pure conservative in the Republican party, nor a pure liberal/progressive in the Dems. Political parties are not ideological discussion groups - they're power seekers who embrace or eschew ideological tenets as necessary to get or maintain power.

This is way condensed; I could probably go on and on about all of the above.

I'm looking forward to hearing others take on this subject.

Click to expand...

Pretty much the same as you. I consider myself a Liberal but have to preface that with "classical" so as not to be confused with modern liberals. On this site I use Libertarian-Right as that is the closest fit.

I label myself as a conservative because of my blend of morality, philosophy, and economic studies. As a strict Catholic, I
believe in a few basic tenants against progressivism and the like. but I am also pessimistic about the connection between the classes in that I feel many people from every class are sheep in a way, or the fact that I am not blind to corruption. if i was more optimistic about human nature i would be a neo-liberal but because of my moral philosophy i am a national conservative (however like all things in economics there is no straightforward answer so im at a cross roads between classical liberalism, neo-liberalism, and national conservatism)

Bullseye said:

When you sign up here on Debate Politics you have an opportunity to assign a "lean" value - Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian, for example. So I'm curious for those that chose one, what made you make that choice.

When most people ask me if I'm liberal or conservative I tell them I'm a Classic Liberal/ conservatarian. I chose "Libertarian - right" on DP.

to me classic liberalism focuses on free markets, low regulation and maximum personal freedom and responsibility; almost the opposite of what many of today's liberals espouse. This leads into the libertarian part - I think we should be allowed to make our own life choice with as little government interference as possible providing we don't negative impact others or become a menace to society. The conservative part is based on a strong defense and an engaged foreign policy and a desire for strong fiscal management.

I don't align blindly with an political party; I don't think there's a pure conservative in the Republican party, nor a pure liberal/progressive in the Dems. Political parties are not ideological discussion groups - they're power seekers who embrace or eschew ideological tenets as necessary to get or maintain power.

This is way condensed; I could probably go on and on about all of the above.

I'm looking forward to hearing others take on this subject.

Click to expand...

In practice, people either don't vote or they vote straight line Democratic or Republican tickets. That covers at least 95% of American voters. So, lots of people are either fooling themselves or trying to fool everyone else into believing that they are independent thinkers.

Don't be fooled.

Howard the Duck said:

In practice, people either don't vote or they vote straight line Democratic or Republican tickets. That covers at least 95% of American voters. So, lots of people are either fooling themselves or trying to fool everyone else into believing that they are independent thinkers.

Don't be fooled.

Click to expand...

And you base this on what?

Bullseye said:

And you base this on what?

Click to expand...

If I took the time and explained it further would you listen?

I have my doubts. So, accept it as my humble opinion.

Thanks.

Just consider this one insight:

Approximately 62 million voted for Bush in 2004.
60 million voted for McCain in 2008.
61 voted for Romney in 2012.
63 million voted for Dumb Donnie in 2016.

That's the same people doing the same thing over and over. It's not an expression of independent thought. Nor is there any indication that there was a groundswell of grassroots activity at any point.

Howard the Duck said:

If I took the time and explained it further would you listen?

I have my doubts. So, accept it as my humble opinion.

Thanks.

Just consider this one insight:

Approximately 62 million voted for Bush in 2004.
60 million voted for McCain in 2008.
61 voted for Romney in 2012.
63 million voted for Dumb Donnie in 2016.

That's the same people doing the same thing over and over. It's not an expression of independent thought. Nor is there any indication that there was a groundswell of grassroots activity at any point.

Click to expand...

LOL, right. Sure, same amount the same people - totally logical. :roll:

Bullseye said:

LOL, right. Sure, same amount the same people - totally logical. :roll:

Click to expand...

Over and over and over and over. There is no difference between the silent majority, deplorables, and the tea party. They are the same people rebranded.

Clinton got just under 50%. Dopey Don got 46%. That does not allow for a lot of independent political activity.

You have no one who has ever won the presidency as an independent. Hell, no one has come close.

You have 1 independent in the Senate--and he ran as a Democrat in 2016 for President.

I know of no independents in the house.

I know of no independent governors.

It's your argument. Shouldn't you have to demonstrate some examples of political independence to make your case?

Howard the Duck said:

Over and over and over and over. There is no difference between the silent majority, deplorables, and the tea party. They are the same people rebranded.

Clinton got just under 50%. Dopey Don got 46%. That does not allow for a lot of independent political activity.

You have no one who has ever won the presidency as an independent. Hell, no one has come close.

You have 1 independent in the Senate--and he ran as a Democrat in 2016 for President.

I know of no independents in the house.

I know of no independent governors.

It's your argument. Shouldn't you have to demonstrate some examples of political independence to make your case?

Click to expand...

So voters never die, nor do any come of age? Just because the numbers are close, doesn't mean it's all the same people, does it?

Bullseye said:

So voters never die, nor do any come of age? Just because the numbers are close, doesn't mean it's all the same people, does it?

Click to expand...

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.

I proudly identify as liberal. Why? I come from a working class background, and support the things that have helped my family and that group, from the right to organize to the benefits in modern employment we take for granted. The whole of twentieth century legislation, from national parks, workers rights, civil rights, Medicare and Social Security came from liberal activism and lawmaking, though not exclusively. I believe that well regulated capitalism is still probably the best model, even as it ranges from what the GOP supports to European socialism.

That seems to be the trend in human political history, in fits and starts since way before Nat Turner and the Amistad. Wallace stood at the door to block blacks from entering yet lived to apologize. Reagan said that Medicare would cost us our freedom, much as some did when SS was suggested... And a lot of people who voted for Trump are on Medicare, which Reagan wisely didn't mess with. Didn't Nixon sign EPA legislation and Bush a prescription drug bill? Trump and the GOP said that they would repeal and replace Obamacare, the key being the word "replace," as the ACA has moved even conservatives' goal posts. Nada so far.

True and sadly, race still divides us, but I remember the day in 1968 when some hell broke loose when Petula Clark touched Harry Belafonte's arm on her show, yet now black-white couples appear in commercial after commercial. And Jesse Jackson, from whom we don't hear a lot (enough?) of these days described the south well when he said that if working class blacks do better there, so will working class whites, in his attempt to address our divide. (Trump and some of his supporters didn't get the memo.)

Much of what perennial Socialist Party candidate Norman Thomas proposed has come to pass and is now no big deal, so it hasn't all been due to liberal proposals. And true, some liberal language police resembles the conservative language police of the 1950s and 1960s, but much of that silliness will pass, even as some will be adopted by the right, even. And conservatives are necessary to all of this, as brakes to slow our less well-thought out ideas. But we are all socialists now, as Time Mag proclaimed some years ago. Or at least all liberals.

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...

And yet the Democratic Presidential vote totals of 08, 12 and 16 are essentially the same. There goes that Russian suppression, they knew conspiracy theory.

hanger4 said:

And yet the Democratic Presidential vote totals of 08, 12 and 16 are essentially the same. There goes that Russian suppression, they knew conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. For instance, Obama had 70 million in 2008.

Howard the Duck said:

Nonsense. For instance, Obama had 70 million in 2008.

Click to expand...

And Obama 2012 was 65,916 and Clinton 2016 was 65,845. If there was Ruskie voter suppression it failed spectacularly. A lot of time, energy and money went into suppressing 71 votes. Give it up Howard, Hillary lost because of Hillary.

hanger4 said:

And Obama 2012 was 65,916 and Clinton 2016 was 65,845. If there was Ruskie voter suppression it failed spectacularly. A lot of time, energy and money went into suppressing 71 votes. Give it up Howard, Hillary lost because of Hillary.

Click to expand...

We are talking about just 70,000 or 80,000 votes. That's the tally that swung 2016.

Oh! 65,916,000−65,845,000 =71,000

Fascinating.

Hey, listen. We already know that if I wanted to you would post "nuh, uh" for dozens of pages.

I appreciate your earnest input, but I wonder what the college graduates think?

Howard the Duck said:

We are talking about just 70,000 or 80,000 votrs. That's the tally that swung 2016.

Oh! 65,916,000−65,845,000 =71,000,000.

Fascinating.

Hey, listen. We already know that if I wanted to you would post "nuh, uh" for dozens of pages.

I appreciate your earnest input, but I wonder what the college graduates think?

Click to expand...

We're talking about 71 votes from 2012 to 2016, where's all this Rusaian suppression ??

Hey listen, I already know you'll go round and round ignoring salient fact without rebuttal, but hey that's what you do, a lot of quack and no bite.

Yes, what do college graduates think ??