BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative

Subject: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 10 May 06 - 03:02 PM

Useful definitions are required if many of the other discussions are to make any sense whatsoever. And of course, these terms mean other things outside the US (which, as we all know is the center of the world and whose definitions are the only ones that truly matter ;-) ).

Is a "Liberal" totally and only one who endorses reproductive choice (and education about same), refuses to persecute gays, prefers that guns have more restrictions on them, and believe that tax laws should favor those who earn their money in the form of a small paycheck. Does s/he also believe that it is the government's responsibility to speak up for the powerless (or at least, less powerful), like workers, children, the poor, the environment.

If you ask most Americans about these positions, the majority support them. Therefore, America is a "Liberal?"

OTOH, "Conservative," or at least today's onservative seems pretends to be for less government interference in peoples' affairs, and less spending. Therefore, America is DEFINITELY not a Conservative. After all, the government is more in debt than it ever has been under any Liberal administration, and far more involved in legislating peoples' personal affairs than it would be if it were truly Conservative. ("Conservatives often take their rhetoric from the Libertarians, who they wish they were but are most assuredly not.)

Which group is more war oriented? The recent opposition to war has come more more from the liberal camp (although it is now pretty well across the board). Certainly, the recent two wars were undeniably instigated by folks who call themselves conservative and use the word Liberal as a derogation.

Or is defining these terms like trying to define "folk music?"

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 06 - 03:07 PM

Like most words, these definitions have slipped their moorings over time and come to mean very different things than they once did.

There was a thread a while back on this very topic -- the redefinition of the word "liberal" as a derogation by half-witted writers like Ann Coulter. I'm sorry, I don't recall the name of it off hand. COnservative is also a perfectly respectable word which has been given a bad odor by the dramatization of neo-con imperialism.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 May 06 - 03:09 PM

In Australia, 'liberal' has a meaning totally opposite to its original meaning, because we have a Liberal Party which is reactionary to the point of radical. Our Liberal PM admires Maggie Thatcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 06 - 03:23 PM

Okay, since you asked, let's get serious and go back to original sources, such as simple definitions:

Liberalism.

Conservatism.

That's pretty sparse, so let's expand it some:

Liberal

Conservative

Read these. Then you might be prepared to discuss this sensibly.

Beware of bumper-sticker thinking. There's a lot of that going around these days.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: autolycus
Date: 10 May 06 - 03:23 PM

It's in a question like this that the matter of maintaining clear definitions versus allowing language to change gets to be central.

   There are dictionary definitions and there are various usages.

   And if you ask people to define terms, some get annoyed and think you are being pedantic.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Peace
Date: 10 May 06 - 03:53 PM

And soon the situation there was all but straightened out . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 06 - 05:42 PM

My opinion is that both terms (and most lables) are quite arbitrary and their meanings change so frequently that they are rendered totally meaningless and completely useless for purposes of comunication.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 06 - 05:44 PM

This thread is deja vu all over again.

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

well...according to that brief quiz (which would LOVE to see expanded and better phrased) I am a 'liberal centrist with 60Y and 40X.....sort of what I might have pegged my self.

The thing is, a yes or no (or 'yes' MAYBE and 'no') on a few questions does not clarify much. A lot depends on the underlying attitudes for an answer.

example: If I were asked if I am in favor of restrictions on immigration, with only yes & no as possible answers, I would have to say "yes"...but my REASONS might be totally different from a bigot who simply hated people with different skin color or language.

similarly, if I were asked if there should be more restrictions on gun ownership, I would again say yes, knowing that my interpretation of the Constitution is different from many people, and that there would be those who agree with me for very different reasons.

one of the questions was "should one have the right to not wear a swimsuit"? Assuming this refers to 'public nudity', I would say "no" to complete freedom of nudity, as a practical matter, not for moral reasons.....

There are many, many questions that I might superficially seem to agree with folks on, but only because the question was narrowly phrased.

Real quizzes need to ask VERY carefully worded questions, AND allow for qualifications and disclaimers.

Almost no one is absolutely anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: mg
Date: 10 May 06 - 06:26 PM

I don't know what I am called (politely). I believe in a strong safety net for those who can not work, work provided for those who could but for whatever reason can not find it by themselves, strong education with absolutely mandatory occupational/vocational education for every single person, mandatory drug testing for anyone receiving any public money whatsoever, including student grants, public housing, Medicare etc. (include the whole entire population if you would prefer). I believe in strong police force, strong military backing up diplomatic efforts. I believe we have gotten totally irresponsible about reproduction and hear way too much about everyone's rights and choices and not enough about how they are not just costing citizens their hard-earned money, but endangering people by bringing babies into circumstances that are unwholesome often as well as poverty-stricken. I am not a compassionate conservative for sure. I am a hard-ass liberal more. I want people to have the help they need, that I or my family might need some day, and I want them to behave themselves and not cause further problems by their behavior. I think there is no choice between social services and military preparedness. We need both. What we do not need is countless people in jail, on drugs, and having babies out of wedlock. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 06 - 06:27 PM

You also have to accept the definitions for "liberal" and "conservative" being used by the people who designed that quiz, if you are going to accept the results of the quiz.

For instance, here in the US, restrictions on gun control is the domain of the "liberals" (according to current popular usage), but my husband, coming from another country, sees restrictions on gun control as a being a "conservative" stance. To him, people who want to be allowed to own any kind of weapon they want are "liberals" and bordering on radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 06 - 06:32 PM

exactly, Carol... good example.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 06 - 07:30 PM

Hmmm I'm musing on "restrictions on gun control". Just what does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 06 - 07:43 PM

It means, Ebbie, that I am not feeling very well today and my brain is very, very fuzzy.

That should have read, "restrictions on gun owenership".

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 06 - 08:03 PM

Here's the earlier thread on the roots of liberal thought I mentioned up thread.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 May 06 - 09:10 PM

Seems to me that "Liberals" in America are a variety of Conservative. And "Conservatives" are a form of Liberal.

In most countries both would be seen as well out on the Right politically. Not that the distinction between moderate Right-wing and crazy Right-wing is unimportant.

Perhaps American "Liberals" could play a bit dirty too, and start making use of the British synonym for "Conservative", by calling their opponenets "Tories" - which should have the merit, in the USA, of making them sound rather unpatriotic.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 06 - 09:12 PM

Nah. The only Tory we know in this country, McGrath, is Tori Spelling. We would be so confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 May 06 - 09:41 PM

Confusion would be one object of the exercise.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:07 PM

For those who choose to use the word "Liberal", it seems to mean, simply, anyone who opposes what we're doing. Like "Commie" usewd to be.

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

It would be a meaningless exercise. Not only would nobody understand... they wouldn't even care.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:15 PM

My last was in reference to this from McGrath...

Confusion would be one object of the exercise

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 06 - 10:52 PM

Here's the earlier thread on the roots of liberal thought I mentioned up thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 May 06 - 09:51 AM

liberal people are nice - they have sex and buy people drinks

conservatives on the other hand, they tend to be older and play dominoes and complain about the beer a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 06 - 09:58 AM

So, weelittledrummer, I am a liberal?


Around here "liberal" is "good", and "conservative" is "evil"

I could be a murderer, bigot, thief, and kick dogs, but if I am "liberal" all is forgiven. On the other hand, Mother Theresa would be booed out of here if she were thought to be "conservative".

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 May 06 - 01:04 PM

I do hope you are indulging in hyperbole, bb.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 May 06 - 01:45 PM

Just try to have an opinion out of line with the liberal ubermensch...

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Bill D
Date: 11 May 06 - 03:30 PM

oh, I think several are QUITE capable of holding up the conservative end of the spectrum.

Curious, huh? Why would you suppose that folkies... happy, witty and well-read, would tend towards the liberal ebd of the spectrum? *bright, inquisitive little smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: kendall
Date: 11 May 06 - 05:07 PM

I wonder why it is that most intellectuals are liberals?

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 11 May 06 - 06:40 PM

Both parties seem to favor big government and a welfare state--it's just that the present administration favors welfare for the rich.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: CarolC
Date: 11 May 06 - 06:44 PM

LOL

Beautifully put, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Bill D
Date: 11 May 06 - 06:48 PM

graphically put

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Paul Burke
Date: 12 May 06 - 08:18 AM

We had all this before in another thread. It's not left/right, liberal/conservative but a political compass!. Take the test and see where YOU are on the map. Suffice it to say that according to them, I'm nearer to Gandhi, Shostakovitch, Ralph Nader and the New Zealand Green Party than I would ever have expected.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 12 May 06 - 12:37 PM

In general, Conservatives think Government is the problem.   Liberals think governmentis the solution.

In specifics:

Liberals want:
Less spending on the military
More spending on low income
Affirmative action programs and quotas
Tax increases to support this spending (especially on the rich)
Gun Control
Less emphasis on religion and certainly not in public places
Abortion at any time
No proactive military interventions overseas
Sign Kyoto protocol
More goverment programs- safety net from cradle to tomb

conservatives want
More spending on the military
Less spending on low income and welfare
No affirmative action and quotas
Tax cuts for all working people
Freedom to own guns
Support of Christmas, manger scenes, the 10 commandments, and pledge of allegiance
Pro life (although I am conservative and pro choice)
Proactive military operations
No Kyoto
Less govenment programs and regulations- freedom to succeed or fail.

Neither side has a coherent view on immigration, but then again neither side has a cohernet candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 06 - 01:42 PM

Conservatives think Government is the problem.   Liberals think governmentis the solution.

LOL

By this definition, the current administration one of the most "liberal" in the history of this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 May 06 - 09:15 PM

So how does that square with Tories being traditionally pretty keen on the military and the whole apparatus of state power?

Wanting to control and use Government for your own ends and to help your own friends is not the same as recognising Government as the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 May 06 - 12:06 PM

I think LarryK's list defines some pretty good "lines in the sand". And I think that everyone would feel more comfortable with Larry's list if they were able to more clearly describe the "why" of each point. As black and white as they are, without the ability to explain each position, they sound "accusatory" rather than descriptive. But I will grant that they seem rather even-handedly "accusatory". :^)

And I think CarolC's response to it is a very astute observation -- and EXACTLY why the conservatives I know have never been comfortable with Bush.

As to why "intellectuals" seem to favor the left, I have a few theories...

1. The observation that intellectuals favor liberalism, as made here on what used to be a folk music oriented site, is skewed in that the majority here, both intellectual and dullard, are aging folkies. That's two reasons why this place is overbalance with leftward thinkers -- music and the arts in general, and folk music in particular attract more leftward thinkers.

If this was a science oriented site (or a NASCAR site, yuck yuck....I kill me) the "intellectuals" would be divided more evenly, and more conservative points of view would be more commonplace, hence, the appearance of a more even distribution of "intellectuals".

2. There's "intellectual" and then there's "intellectualism". Intellectual is a worthy goal (were you to ask me). It honors the pursuit of knowledge. IntellectualISM is a social disease. It is mental gymnastics run amok.

Intellectuals have always and rightfully taken great pleasure in noting that the obvious is not always the true. The observation of things that, at the time of discovery seemed counter to "common sense" marked the intellectual as the superior thinker. That kind of intellectual moved the world along in science and logic.

But that pleasure in noting that the obvious was not always true became both a sign of being intellectual (as said before, a worthy goal), but a bit addictive in a social climbing way ….. and a bit too much of a sign of superior thinking than it deserved. That is, a good mind with less-than-honorable goals of feeding their self-esteem and lording knowledge over peons helped create the pseudo-intellectual.

This false intellectual is very practiced – not at displaying a talent for discovering truth that seems counter to the obvious, rather, at making falsehood appear to the naïve as truth.

And while I can't help but cede to the proposition that liberals seem to have more intellectuals, it seems that way at least in part because I think that liberals have (and attract) CONSIDERABLY more pseudo-intellectuals, AND the infrastructure of academia whose job it has become to blur the line between the two. Allow the naïve to add up the true intellectuals and the pseudo-intellectuals and he will conclude a bigger number of intellectuals because the naïve, when counting, can't tell the difference between the two.

3. The brighter mind doesn't like what appears to it to be conformity. Even if conformity is the right thing to do, bright minds tend to bridle against it. Yes, one might argue that both sides of the political spectrum have their dogma to which one would adhere to include ones self in that camp.

….but the difference is, as I said, the appearance of less conformity is on the liberal side. Everything that is antisocial, or was once considered to be, has found its home in modern liberalism. Liberalism is the home of the "naughty". Sex, drugs, and Rock&Roll are the driving forces of so much of modern Liberalism. Conversely, the appearance of being "uptight" is the private domain of the conservative.

For this reason, popular entertainment is almost solely liberal. It has to be. Nobody in entertainment can possibly afford to appear "un-hip". Popular entertainment being what it is promotes the liberal POV better than its politicians do. Especially from the angle of psychological need for public acceptance.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 06 - 01:29 PM

That post is a very good example of the syndrome you describe John.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 May 06 - 02:59 PM

Why? Which of those points do you disagree with, and why? I only presented them as opinion.

And I certainly don't consider myself as an intellectual. I thought we were discussing "intellectuals" not being them.

The conservatives used to BE the intellectuals. Before the "Limbaughization" of the conservative ideas, it was people like William F Buckley who characterized them.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 May 06 - 03:06 PM

I was going to mention Buckley, John. Glad you brought him up.

How do you think he fits into your hypothesis?

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 May 06 - 03:29 PM

"How do you think he fits into your hypothesis?"

I think he is a true intellectual. And I think there are obviously true intellectuals on the left. Lots of 'em. The question I was merely trying to offer an possible answer to is why there seems to be more intellectuals on the left than on the right.

My guesses were:

1. Maybe there aren't -- maybe it's just a perception here where liberals are in such a large, vocal majority.

2. Maybe it's because pseudo-intellectuals (such as I described them) are counted WITH the true intellectuals, thereby inflating the number.

3. Bright people don't like social restrictions. Liberals offer Sexual, recreational drug, and most other behaviors MUCh greater latitude than do conservatives.

'sall I was sayin'. y'know?

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 May 06 - 03:36 PM

In a semantic discussion, terms have to be defined so that we know what's being talked about.

Terms such as Liberal or Conservative and now Progressive are being used as weapons against those whose ideas are not popular with the people who use them.

They are only useful if we know what the meaning of the words are by the people who use them.

If they are used as weapons they are robbed of their usefulness and significance.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 May 06 - 03:51 PM

"In a semantic discussion, terms have to be defined so that we know what's being talked about."


Hmmm. And as I see these discussions on the mudcat (I find myself in agreement with GregF, upthread -- this is just deja vu. We've talked them out endlessly), it is almost always the demand for definition that gets in the way of discussion. Most everyone knows what is meant by the terms.

And the way these things end is with the Left being defined by the Left, and the Right being defined by the Left. :^) So, stopping the discussion in midstream to define terms that most people already understand is just a stick in the spokes.

If the terms liberal and conservative been weaponized, I think that that is a perception that resides in the mind of the insecure.

If the terms are mischaracterized -- as often happens when one side defines the other for it -- that can be argued one misrepresentation at a time. And they usually are.

Though several try hard to be, mudcat has no refs.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 06 - 03:58 PM

It looks like, based on this part of your post...

But that pleasure in noting that the obvious was not always true became both a sign of being intellectual (as said before, a worthy goal), but a bit addictive in a social climbing way .... and a bit too much of a sign of superior thinking than it deserved. That is, a good mind with less-than-honorable goals of feeding their self-esteem and lording knowledge over peons helped create the pseudo-intellectual.

This false intellectual is very practiced � not at displaying a talent for discovering truth that seems counter to the obvious, rather, at making falsehood appear to the naive as truth.

...that who one labels as "pseudo-intellectual" will be determined by what one considers to be the "truth".

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 06 - 04:20 PM

amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 May 06 - 04:59 PM

Clever observation, CarolC. That's why you get the big bucks (and post with an adoring entourage like akenaton *BG*)

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: akenaton
Date: 13 May 06 - 05:45 PM

"The adoration of Carol C".....No dosen't sound quite right to me ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 06 - 05:57 PM

He's trying to be ironic, akenaton. That effort was an improvement over some of his past ones, but I think his approach is still a bit heavy-handed. However, I have to give him credit for not giving up. He's a real trooper.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 May 06 - 06:13 PM

Huh? I said "Clever observation, CarolC". No irony intended. Your observation was an interesting one.

I seem to bring out an unfriendly humorlessness in you.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 06 - 06:21 PM

Actually, I was being playful with you, John. And thanks for the "clever observation" comment. I was addressing, for akenaton, the comment about my "adoring entourage". I have to assume it's irony, since I don't think akenaton would consider himself in any way to be "adoring" or a part of an "entourage" in relation to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Defining terms: Liberal/Conservative
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 May 06 - 06:24 PM

Terrific! Glad things are all ginchy again.

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?