Is zero tolerance a conservative or liberal idea?

[Ladewig]

Is zero tolerance a conservative or liberal idea?

 

[PogoPedant]

I voted neither, because I am a hopelessly naïve boy that still thinks conservative is about change through careful reform, and liberal means avoiding governmental regulation of the market as far as reasonably possible. Neither philosophy concerns itself with particular policies of policing.

I know I'm wrong, but I cling to my dream.

 

[fagin]

I voted Planet L as one man's conservative is another man's liberal.

 

[Upchurch]

I voted Planet L as one man's conservative is another man's liberal.

Today's conservative preserves the dreams of yesterday's liberal.

(or something like that.)

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

More than likely it's an authortarian view which is.. neither.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The question is meaningless until you say what it's tolerance (or intolerance) of.

For instance, I believe leeway should be given and the circumstances examined in cases like pocket knives in schools, but I'm very strictly zero-tolerant on exploding car bombs in crowded city squares. Call me draconian, but I'm unwilling to listen to any excuses for that sort of thing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Zero tolerance for what?

I've only heard that phrase used lately in the context of enforcing speed limits very strictly (stopping cars for just barely going over the limit).

In this case, I think it's merely greater confidence in the speed detecting technology.

 

[Ladewig]

The question is meaningless until you say what it's tolerance (or intolerance) of.

For instance, I believe leeway should be given and the circumstances examined in cases like pocket knives in schools, but I'm very strictly zero-tolerant on exploding car bombs in crowded city squares. Call me draconian, but I'm unwilling to listen to any excuses for that sort of thing.

I thought it was obvious because I have never heard the phrase used to describe violent felonies. I am talking about enforcing rules in public schools in the U.S.

ETA: I am not talking about specific rules (e.g. do not bring guns to class, do not bring photos of guns to class) but rather the concept that no extenuating circumstance will be considered as punishment for violating these rules are meted out.

 

[Dancing David]

Zero tolerance laws for schools rose under the Regan and Bush I (and some under Clinton) era in schools as part of the hoopla over the war on drugs. they are supported equally by liberals and conservatives and then decried when they are applied to middle class white people.

ETA: They are applied differently in manys chool districts by the age of a child, zero tolerance is rarer in grade schools than high schools, if a first grader brings an Airsoft gun to class, they will likely be suspended for the day, if a fifth grader, then likely three days, middle school on up, explusion.
(In My Limited Experience.)

 

[Meadmaker]

I think if you examined various "zero tolerance" policies, you would find liberals and conservatives who support some, and decry others.

ETA: Which is why I voted neither.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, the topic's a bit vague. "Zero tolerance" policies include everything from three-strike legislation to schools that expel/suspend kids for bringing nail clippers or Tylenol to school.

 

[MikeMangum]

Something as broad as "zero tolerance" can't be pinned to any ideological position, it is all about context. People of differing ideologies will have zero tolerance for different things; it is all about what the followers of that particular ideology find abhorrent. Each political philosophy has members that are willing to vigorously enforce their own norms on other people.

 

[Brainster]

Mostly, it's a stupid idea. It's a way of saying that "We're too stupid to tell the difference between a gram of cocaine and an aspirin tablet, so we're going to punish both equally."

 

[Darat]

Is zero tolerance a conservative or liberal idea?

I would say in societies like the UK and the USA which have not had "zero tolerance" for a long time (or ever?) it can't be a conservative idea since it would require a huge change in society to implement "zero tolerance" throughout. And of course just because it can't be a conservative idea does not make it a "liberal idea".

 

[ponderingturtle]

Today's conservative preserves the dreams of yesterday's liberal.

(or something like that.)

Not really, today's liberal preserves the dream of yesterdays conservatives in the US at least. See Nixon's push for universal health care, or founding environmental agencies.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They tend to stem from the desire to be seen to get tough on crime. But tied to fundamental beliefs gets a bit harder. I would tend to associate them more with the american right, but it is not any kind of hard division.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Neither: it's a stupid idea.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

both and neither, it depends on the issue