BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 May 06 - 06:53 PM

Very strange. This thread seems to be operating as a reasonably courteous discussion between people who disagree with each other on things they actually care about.

Now I've said that I suppose it might spiral off into a traditional acerbic catfight. But I hope not.

I get tired at the way a whole range of different issues get tied up together so that it is assumed that if you know what someone thinks on one thing you know what they think on everything. The trouble with that is that, since people do like to clump together with like-mionded people, a lot of us are lilley to shut up on the issues where we feel we are a bit at odds with "our side", or even adjust our thinking to fall in with what we see as the consensus. And that is just as liable to happen in every part of the forest.

Some time back I remember a newspaper here ran a quiz billed as determining whether you were a conservative or not. Questions on all kinds of issues and lifestyle variations. When I did it I was interested to see that I came out as decidely conservative in spite of having a set of opinions on any number of political and economic issues which would be counted as way off to the left.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 06 - 07:36 PM

Hell of a job defining ain't it folks?

Let me see now if I've got this straight!

In the US of A you have Republicans on one side and liberals on t'other. The repubs are divided into conservatives and neoconservatives, and the liberals are divided........

Now the repubs are quite progressive in nature, mainly progressing into other peoples' countries and getting v. rich on the proceeds of all that fightin'. The only thing they seem interested in conserving is their political power.

The liberals however are quite conservative, but at the moment unable to agree on just what it is they want to conserve.

The progressives on the liberal side want to progress to Washington DC, so they can have a spell of enjoying that power.

The liberals on the other hand want to conserve the poor, the environment, the earth's natural resources etc. etc.

Choosing who to vote for seems like a no brainer for anyone who ain't on George's gravy train, wouldn't you say?



How'm I doing so far?...........My head hurts!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 May 06 - 08:50 PM

It gets silly. there's the whole "red state/blue state" thing which is a news media construct. Conservatives have traditionally had a financial fiscal policy of restraint. Some of those kind are still Repubs and not voting for Bush's Drunken Sailor spree.

Progessive seems to mean something else today then it did at the time of Henry Wallace's Independent Progressive Party.

One distinction that could be made is that Conservatives tend toward an authoritarian view of policies whereas Liberals tend to be well...more liberal.

Labels are used in marketing. These are tools to sell ideas whether political or widgits. "What is folk music" controversy is put in perspective when you consider that recording companies used the term "folk" to sell records to specific targeted customers. The same thing can be said about political labels. You can sell fear and loathing through labels and divide people and form alliances this way. Labels are a sort of enemy posing. It's kind of a Krips and Bloods wearing their colors.

I like to stick to issues and forget the labels.

frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 May 06 - 05:26 PM

The German "Liberale" have always been seated on the very right side of the parliament since the last war. That's where they belong to, mostly, even in those years when they had a coalition with the social democrats on the left side on the parliament.

They are an interesting mixture of 'neoliberal' opinions when it comes to economy or unions or solidarity with the poor and truly liberal when it comes to religion, women rights, civil rights.

They support the modern unideological version of capitalism that wants to get rid of old hats. That's why they could form a coalition with the left in the 1970s. The times of Adenauer (a conservative restituion of a German republic) had left many reform projects untouched.

Just imagine for a moment that in the 1960s an 85 year old woman got sentenced for 'pimping' when her son (in his fifties) did sleep with his female friend in her house. A married woman, even if she happened to be the sole earner in the marriage had to ask her husband before being allowed to spend her own money on buyings more than just daily necessities. He could veto any larger spending. There are many more examples of that kind. The German capitalism had worked quite well for rebuilding the country after the war, but then (late 60s) it was in an urgent need of reform to get rid of oldfashioned religiously dominated laws. The social liberal coalition reformed a lot of out of date laws and made the German capitalism more stream-like for the modern times. It also opened the politics to the East of Europe with considerable success.

But after these overdue reforms were done against the opposition of the ideologically and religiously motivated conservative part of the society the common ground was quickly sliding away between the unequal pertners and the Liberals changed partners into a coalition with the Christian democrats who are much nearer to them in economical terms.

Even now the Liberals are extremely conservative (neoliberal) when it comes to economy (even more than the Christian democrats) but still fairly left regarding civil rights. They are led by a more or less open homosexual (and nobody cares), they would oppose any infringement of human rights, are outspokenly against Guantanamo and Bush's world politics, are of course pro choice and all that, but would immediately implement a Thatcherian economy if they could. Low taxes and no increase of taxation with the income is what they are for.

No (or close to no) interference of the government with anything is their battle cry, and that means on the one hand for instance no interference with sexual lifestyle (between consenting adults) and also, on the other hand, no interference with joblessness and firings.

So depending upon what you look at you might call them right or left of the center. They themselves would consider them right of the center. And so do I.

Wolfgang (who has only voted once for that party for tactical reasons and immediately rued that decision)

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 May 06 - 10:06 PM

I tried to post this just before - or did I cause it?- the Cat crashed so I'll try it again. Eb

"Liberals offer Sexual, recreational drug, and most other behaviors MUCh greater latitude than do conservatives." John Hardly

This certainly is not a new thought but I'll say it again anyway. If - and I agree with you - liberals offer greater latitude regarding sexual behavior, drug use and most other (controversial) electives, perhaps it is simply that liberals trust other adults to think about their own standards of behavior and act accordingly while the US conservative tends to want laws made to address such behaviors - and wants them to be enforced.

Individually, however, there are many conservatives who truly do want government to stay out of the people's business and there are liberals who - well, no, actually.

I think of a liberal as someone who knows that a burden shared becomes light for all- and therefore supports pooled resources for the poor, the homeless, the jobless, the orphaned, the neglected and the exploited, and feels strongly that a dollar spent in intervention at an impressionable age is better than 5 dollars spent 15 or 20 years later in the criminal justice system. I think of a liberal as less punitive, to begin with. I think of a liberal as being someone who wants appalling people locked up rather than killed. I think a liberal would love to believe that rehabilitation is the goal of incarceration. I think of a liberal as someone who is always learning, even though s/he recognizes that changing and releasing long-cherished but ultimately wrong ideas can be painful.

I would welcome having conservatives list the qualities that they love.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 May 06 - 10:44 AM

"I think of a liberal as someone who knows that a burden shared becomes light for all- and therefore supports pooled resources for the poor, the homeless, the jobless, the orphaned, the neglected and the exploited"

I can't speak for all conservatives. I can only tell you the type of people around whom I was raised. They are conservative because:

1. though they agreed with the worthiness of the goals you outline, they didn't see the methods of dealing with them, as put forth and instituted by centralized government, as meeting those goals.

And the more cynical among us actually saw the programs implemented to meet those goals were actually, whether intentional or un, both making the problems worse AND creating a government machinery that could become an even bigger problem -- such as it has now under a Republican government (whether you want to note that as ironic or not is up to you. I do ). When you build a really big monster (government), don't be surprised when he's too big for you to control either. Monsters don't behave -- even for the ones who create them. (remember that oldie from the early 60s "The Snake"?)

"...and feels strongly that a dollar spent in intervention at an impressionable age is better than 5 dollars spent 15 or 20 years later in the criminal justice system."

No problem whatsoever with this goal. Don't even see it as a conservative/liberal issue until you start trying to decide what is most effective "intervention at an impressionable age"

"I think of a liberal as less punitive, to begin with."

I'll grant you that one. I think that that's pretty self-evident with very few exceptions.

But if we were to look into the "why" of that difference, I think we'd find a very interesting discussion. I'm sure I'm either wrong or overstating the case (I'm sure someone here will correct me :^) )but the differences in approach as regards crime and punishment...

The liberal is proudly empathetic. Empathy is one thing I constantly hear liberals hail proudly as their domain. Interestinly, it is also very high on the list of things also claimed as characteristic of intellectuals.

And this is where that liberal intellectual "obstinance" thing comes into play -- that attempt to show that the truth isn't in the obvious. I think that to the liberal intellectual it is ASSUMED that one would feel empathy for the victim of a crime. The attractive thing to the intellectual liberal though, is in glomming onto the less obvious -- and empathy for the criminal. Because this seems the less obvious choice as an object for empathy, it feeds the liberal's sense of himself as more intellectual. Plus, the liberal tends to percieve itself as brighter, more intelectual than the rest of society and, as such, see its role of defending the criminal as a moral crusade against a society that is not bright enough to feel appropriate empathy for the criminal. The liberal sees himself in a messianic role for the criminal.

But as the conservative views it, he also has empathy for the criminal. It's just that in his judgement, that empathy -- an empathy that no humanitiarian would deny, cannot overide either the empathy for the victim, or the safety of the community.

Further....I think that to a certain extent there is a misunderstanding between conservative and liberal POVs on crime and punishment that is characterized sorta like...

The liberal's empathy for the criminal manifests itself in "how would I wish to be treated if I were in his shoes" -- but asking from the POV that the criminal's act was the fault of society.

The conservative's empathy for the criminal manifest itself in "what strategy would most likely keep me from committing this act again" -- but asking from the point of view that crime is a volitional act counter to personal responsibility.

Both are empthetic to the criminal. Both say "there but for the grace of God go I" (though the liberal is far more likely not to bring God into the issue *BG). But when one is putting themselves in the criminal's shoes, they want mercy from society -- even if it doesn't cure the problem -- after all, it's society's fault that the crime was committed in the first place. When the other is putting themselves in the criminal's shoes, his main criterion for what he expects done to him is what will be better for society and what will decrease crime in general.

"I think of a liberal as someone who is always learning, even though s/he recognizes that changing and releasing long-cherished but ultimately wrong ideas can be painful."

I like to think that I'm always learning too. It didn't really occur to me to assume that liberals didn't feel the same way. :^)

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 06 - 11:54 AM

Ah, John, it is people like you who defy stereotype- I wish there were more like you.

Mind you, I take exception to a couple of things in your summarized POV, but then, you knew that.

And I still would like to hear a list of qualities that you love and see typified in the conservative.

I would like to hear others on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 May 06 - 12:16 PM

"And I still would like to hear a list of qualities that you love and see typified in the conservative."

A worthy, strong desire and pursuit of personal responsibility.

A very strong sense that Government's care doesn't diminish the need to care for those in ones immediate sphere of influence.

A good sense of the good in order. That's not conformity for its own sake (which I think that the liberal rightly fears) -- rather, not dismissing order as something "beneath my dignity".

A good sense of justice -- a proper understanding of its function improved by being "blind".

A good sense of the proper dignity of man. (I so often find Liberals backing accidentally into, for example, the racism implied in affirmative action -- a racism that assumes one race weaker than another and in need of a boost)

A better capacity for judging its own than the liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 May 06 - 12:30 PM

I might put a finer point to my fifth point. I might have said: A fair sense that an action should be judged on its outcome, not JUST its intention. That one doesn't get points for just doing something. ...that "something" really ought to work in order to be given credit. And recognizing that, while compassion is divine, pity is condescending and unhelpful.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 06 - 12:51 PM

John, I must be a conservative- I agree with all those points. (Even though I quibble with your affirmative action point, because I believe that there's an inherent misunderstanding of its goals and the need for it.)

I don't think those qualities are 'conservative', I think they are human and humane, no matter the political labeling. Thank God that I see those beliefs in action every day among people I know and love, some of whose 'labels' I don't even know.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: GUEST,Dumbo
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:07 PM

Huh??
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING!??

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:19 PM

Conservative=Fascism and Greed
Liberal=Hypocracy and Racism

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 06 - 09:58 PM

Hmmmm? Which one are you, Stephen?