• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservative vs Liberal - observations

Bruce

Philosopher
Bruce
Joined
Jul 26, 2001
Messages
7,519
I didn't start really paying attention to politics until the last couple of years. I didn't really have a good handle on what liberals and conservatives were or what they represented, and I still don't, but here are some observations I've made. Let me know if you think they are accurate.

Liberals

A) Strongly Support:
- the sick, the poor, and the hungry
- minorities
- peace and tolerance
- civil liberties
- the environment

B) Vicariously (though unintentionally) Support:
- the lazy, the whiny, criminals, and con artists (those that take advantage of civil liberties)
- dictators of third world countries (Oil for food)

C) Fight against:
- the power hungry, the greedy, and irresponsible large corporations
- bigots and religious zealots

D) Honor, but don't necessarily fight for:
-"self-made" people, small businesses
- families, small town communities
- free market and capitalism
- morality and ethics

Conservatives
A) Strongly Support:
-"self-made" people, small businesses
- families, small town communities
- free market and capitalism
- morality and ethics

B) Vicariously (though unintentionally) Support:
- the power hungry, the greedy, and irresponsible large corporations (those that take advantage of free market and capitalism)
- bigots and the religious zealots (those that warp morality and ethics)

C) Fight against:
- the lazy, the whiny, criminals, and con artists
- dictators of third world countries

D) Honor, but don't necessarily fight for:
- the sick, the poor, and the hungry
- minorities
- peace and tolerance
- civil liberties
- the environment

When Conservatives or Liberals promote themselves, they talk about A. When Conservatives or Liberals talk about each other, they focus on C, but fail to mention (or totally blow off) B. Both Liberals and Conservatives are perfectly fine with D, but have very different ideas about them and how to run them.

Notice I don't say Democrats and Republicans. Both of these parties only want votes. They will claim to support whatever appears to have the majority's favor, but their true support while in office goes to the highest bidder.

How's that for a political analysis?
 
I think it's pretty spot-on; good write-up.

I'd wager the Liberals will take exception to point B, however, despite it being the reason many former Liberals like myself, are now Conservative, at least fiscally.
 
I would argue that, given Republican policy in Central America through the 1980s, conservatives are much more in support of third-world dictators than liberals.
 
As long as you're not taking "liberalism" to the "socialist" extreme, liberals honor pure capitalism far more than conservatives do. Read the literature of Adam Smith and the founding fathers of capitalism; they weren't talking about conservative supply-side garbage.
 
since I believe morality is subjective I would say liberals and conservatives both strongly support their ideas of morality.
 
Cleon said:
I would argue that, given Republican policy in Central America through the 1980s, conservatives are much more in support of third-world dictators than liberals.
Click to expand...
Well, my opinion is that they both are for and against third-world dictators. Depends on the political leanings of the dictator, who his enemies are, and what suits American interests in the region.
 
I think you need to split it up between social and finacial. I would wager that this board has a lot of people who would identify themselves as socially liberal, and financially conservative.

It really sucks, in this country, if you want a socially liberal canidate, he/she will likely be a fiscal liberal, and most fiscally consevative canidates won't be very visibily different than jerry fallwell.

Do we really have to accept socialized medicine if we want women's right to choose to be protected?

Anyway, I would say that the (A) column is not so much what the party stands for, but what they accuse the other party of being against. IE, republicans are racists, democrats want to destroy small buisness and are just in politics for the nookie.
 
Donks said:
Well, my opinion is that they both are for and against third-world dictators. Depends on the political leanings of the dictator, who his enemies are, and what suits American interests in the region.
Click to expand...

That's probably fair. I just didn't want to see liberals get blamed for "supporting third world dictators" after Republican support to such nice guys as Hussein, Somoza, Pinochet, etc.
 
Conservatives support a morality and ethics based on texts written by ancient, ignorant people. Liberals support a morality and ethics based on a misguided notion of humanity's motivations.

BTW, libertarians support a morality and ethics that is (more or less) based on the reality of people's greed and fears with a basic understanding of supply and demand.

CBL
 
I'd be libertarian all the way, but I don't trust their economics. Sounds like more tax cuts for the rich to me.
 
Donks said:
Well, my opinion is that they both are for and against third-world dictators. Depends on the political leanings of the dictator, who his enemies are, and what suits American interests in the region.
Click to expand...

Good point.

Conservatives sell weapons to third world dictators, ignorantly thinking that they will only use the weapons on other countries that we are enemies with, rather than us.

Liberals give money to third world dictators, ignorantly thinking that they will only use the money to feed their starving citizens, rather than use that money to buy weapons from countries that we are friends with to use on us.
 
RussDill wrote:
I think you need to split it up between social and finacial. I would wager that this board has a lot of people who would identify themselves as socially liberal, and financially conservative.
Click to expand...

I think it would extend to the entire country. However, it seems to me, with the advent of certain AM radio personalities, one of the tenets of Neo-Conservatism is that this distinction doesn't exist. Conservatism has evolved* into an 'all or nothing' package that you must buy into. Falter in any category and you're not a true conservative. Even worse, you might be liberal!!!

*I used conservatism and evolve in the same sentence.:D ;)
 
Phrost said:
I'd wager the Liberals will take exception to point B, however, despite it being the reason many former Liberals like myself, are now Conservative, at least fiscally.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the recent Southpark with the Redneck characters yelling "They're taking jobs."

If you're fiscally conservative are you a social liberal? If so, how you finance those social programs? You don't see the problem with the presupposition that by helping poor people you are helping the lazy. You are in that sense stereotyping the poor as lazy.
 
Questioninggeller said:
That reminds me of the recent Southpark with the Redneck characters yelling "They're taking jobs."

If you're fiscally conservative are you a social liberal? If so, how you finance those social programs? You don't see the problem with the presupposition that by helping poor people you are helping the lazy. You are in that sense stereotyping the poor as lazy.
Click to expand...

socially liberal is from a rights perspective. Social programs would be considered part of the fiscal liberalism.

So I think social liberalism would be true seperation of church and state, abortion rights, pro-immigration stance, etc, I can't speak for everyone.
 
Hmm interesting!

But as usual I feel that the truth lies somewhere in between, we need more labels in US politic. I call myself a reformed socialist, because while I support socialist values I grant that we may need to use the market place to meet those ideals.

I would say that thee easiest distinction between Liberals and Conservatives is going to be hard to find. I as a liberal support 'small town values' but disagree with racism and prejudice.

It used to be that conservatives supported civil liberties, which has changed.
 
Cleon said:
I would argue that, given Republican policy in Central America through the 1980s, conservatives are much more in support of third-world dictators than liberals.
Click to expand...

Context please.

The US backed dictators that were "less" tyranical than the ones they were trying to oust/defeat.

Hussein, at the time, being a secular, modern Arab, seemed a much better choice than the Mullahs who were responsible for holding our citizens hostage a few years earlier.

Try to be objective, just a tad, k?
 
Phrost said:
Context please.

The US backed dictators that were "less" tyranical than the ones they were trying to oust/defeat.
Click to expand...

Yeah, of COURSE they were. :rolleyes:

And who did Trujillo oust that was "less tyrannical," again? Or Somoza? What about Noriega?

Justifying supporting these bastards in the name of anti-communism only goes so far.

Hussein wasn't supported because he was "better" than the Islamicists; he was supported as a pawn in the Cold War. If the US had given two hoots about Islamicists, they wouldn't have thrown all that aid to the Afghan mujaheddin.

Try to be just a tad objective, k?
 
That's me - fiscally conservative and socially liberal, pro-liberty and pro-globalization. You can have Springer, Nugent, Savage, Moore, Limbaugh, Stern, O'Reilly, Franken, Hannity or Falwell as your hero, just don't force me to have any of them as my hero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom