Are liberals any different than conservatives?

[ChristineES]

I usually don't comment on anything political since I am not a fan of politics. I hear enough about politics from husband, who talks of little else. I personally don't see much of a difference anymore between Democrats and Republicans. I certainly don't know if my belief is accurate at all, since I just don't pay any attention to politics.
If there are any true differences, outside of issues, I would love to hear them.
(I better say now that this is topic is not intended to attack or anything, it is meant to light hearted.)

 

[McBell]

I have heard tell that if you cut a liberal you get blood.
But if you cut a conservative, you get gravy.

I do not know of the accuracy of such a statement, however, because no one in either group will let me cut them to find out.
:sad4:

Which means that they have at least one thing in common.

 

[s2a]

I usually don't comment on anything political since I am not a fan of politics. I hear enough about politics from husband, who talks of little else. I personally don't see much of a difference anymore between Democrats and Republicans. I certainly don't know if my belief is accurate at all, since I just don't pay any attention to politics.
If there are any true differences, outside of issues, I would love to hear them.
(I better say now that this is topic is not intended to attack or anything, it is meant to light hearted.)

Lightheartedly enough...I offer this set of defined differences:

conservative --
adjective
"1. resistant to change
2. having social or political views favoring conservatism
3. avoiding excess
4. unimaginatively conventional
5. conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class

noun
1. a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas"
--Source: WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University

...VS...

liberal
adjective
"1. showing or characterized by broad-mindedness
2. having political or social views favoring reform and progress
3. tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
4. given or giving freely
5. not literal

noun
1. a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties"
--Source: WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University

How's that? Any differences you see?

Pssst.

I'm a "liberal", so you can't trust me, or anything I post, if you're a "conservative".

;-)

 

[gnomon]

First, Democrats does not equate to liberalism. You would think that the labor union marriage to the Democratic party with it's strong base of moderate conservatives who consider themselves traditionalists would know this.

Yes, there are some differences between liberalism and conservatism but at the core they are useless terms.

 

[McBell]

I keep forgetting, Which one is the ***?

 

[s2a]

First, Democrats does not equate to liberalism. You would think that the labor union marriage to the Democratic party with it's strong base of moderate conservatives who consider themselves traditionalists would know this.

Yes, there are some differences between liberalism and conservatism but at the core they are useless terms.

Funny...I don't recall the OP naming or referring to any particular political party...

In my state, I am recorded as a (long-time) registered "independent".

My personal (ie, self-described) political orientation is that of a "social progressive ". I vote my conscience and self-interests in every election. If that makes me a "Liberal", then let me wear that button proudly and confidently upon my lapel.

 

[gnomon]

Funny...I don't recall the OP naming or referring to any particular political party...

In my state, I am recorded as a (long-time) registered "independent".

My personal (ie, self-described) political orientation is that of a "social progressive ". I vote my conscience and self-interests in every election. If that makes me a "Liberal", then let me wear that button proudly and confidently upon my lapel.

From the OP:

I personally don't see much of a difference anymore between Democrats and Republicans.

I used to call myself a classic liberal, mainly to avoid calling myself a libertarian, but dropped all self-labeling. I no longer find any point in it.

 

[Fluffy]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans are conservative parties as are Labour and the Conservatives in the UK. A liberal party would be the Green party (in both countries). That might show the differences to you more clearly.

 

[s2a]

From the OP:
Quote:
I personally don't see much of a difference anymore between Democrats and Republicans.
I used to call myself a classic liberal, mainly to avoid calling myself a libertarian, but dropped all self-labeling. I no longer find any point in it.

Whups, indeed. My bad.

I wonder why the author of the OP has yet to lend any acknowledgement or replies to the thread she instigated?

 

[ChristineES]

I wonder why the author of the OP has yet to lend any acknowledgment or replies to the thread she instigated?

I have been reading them but of yet have no comment on them. All I can say is that I am nonpolitical, I don't believe in politics. To be quite blunt, I have some Democratic views and I also have some Republican views, but not enough of either one to be a Democrat or a Republican.

The issues are very different with each political party- That is as certain as I am typing this now. But as for how they go about them is the same. Neither side seems to be able to compromise or to be able to see the other side's point of view. For every point, there is a counter point. For every argument there is another argument from the other side. It seems to me that politicians can't see beyond their own point of view and think that their way is the only way. I would go as far as to say is that politicians(I mean this generally and not individually) don't even seem to care about people's feelings. They also seem to worry about things that would not even effect them (for example--if gays were given the right to marry, it would not effect anyone who is not gay).

 

[blackout]

Are liberals any different than conservatives?

nah. everyone's deluded.
label & leader happy.
same ****... different day.
IMHO:flirt:

It's all a game.
a grand illusion.

 

[gnomon]

I have been reading them but of yet have no comment on them. All I can say is that I am nonpolitical, I don't believe in politics. To be quite blunt, I have some Democratic views and I also have some Republican views, but not enough of either one to be a Democrat or a Republican.

The issues are very different with each political party- That is as certain as I am typing this now. But as for how they go about them is the same. Neither side seems to be able to compromise or to be able to see the other side's point of view. For every point, there is a counter point. For every argument there is another argument from the other side. It seems to me that politicians can't see beyond their own point of view and think that their way is the only way. I would go as far as to say is that politicians(I mean this generally and not individually) don't even seem to care about people's feelings. They also seem to worry about things that would not even effect them (for example--if gays were given the right to marry, it would not effect anyone who is not gay).

That's understandable. Years ago when Newt Gingrich was raised to the position of Speaker of the House and put forth Christina Jeffrey, the ridiculous accusations and the craven nature of Gingrich was pure party politics at its worst. What should have been an inconsequential appointment to a position that I do not believe even exists anymore turned into accusations of anti-semitism. Despite statements by members of the Anti-Defamation League stating otherwise the Democrats pushed, Gingrich failed to even support Mrs. Jeffrey and ultimately dropped her.

In the scope of things, inconsequential as far as the government goes but a pretty clear case of standard political practice. Especially considering the players involved. All over an appointment to House Historian.:sarcastic

Trial by firestorm: the case of Christina Jeffrey teaches

 

[Mathematician]

The Democratic and Republican leadership are more alike than different because they want to win votes. The two-party system has always guaranteed 35-40% of the votes. They're all vying for the 20%.

There is an ideological difference between conservatives and liberals, though. If you want extreme examples look at Dennis Kucinich and Tom Tancredo.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Conservative and Liberal and socialist are philosophies not parties.
Most parties (and people) are a mix of all three ideologies.
From the European perspective the US seem to be....
republican veer to the conservative with a little liberal and no socialist.
Democrat are equal conservative and liberal with a little socialist.

In the UK all parties are much more centralist...
The conservative party is 60% conservative 20% liberal and 20% socialist
The Liberal Party is 60% Liberal 35% socialist and 5% conservative
The New labour party is 50% socialist 40% conservative and 10% liberal

Generally the more Liberal a party is the more it is prepared to think out of the traditional box.

From that you can see the New labour party finds it more difficult to accept change than either the Liberal or indeed conservative parties

 

[Reverend Rick]

The Democratic and Republican leadership are more alike than different because they want to win votes. The two-party system has always guaranteed 35-40% of the votes. They're all vying for the 20%.

Exactly right. What I don't understand is why the left or the right panders to folks who are going to vote for them anyway. Homosexuals are not going to vote republican in very big numbers just as CEO's hardly ever vote democratic.

The next President of the United States is going to have to make inroads to the middle. That makes both sides waffle when they do this.

Another point I would like to make is, the middle 20% gets to decide who the next President is. That does not sound very democratic now does it?

 

[s2a]

Another point I would like to make is, the middle 20% gets to decide who the next President is. That does not sound very democratic now does it?

If only 20% constituted an "majority opinion", I'd have to agree. It's when that 20% (actually more like 30%) tend to favor with the 30-40% of either "side" that we see a "democratic" majority arise.

Just speaking for me...I'm pleased enough to allow those fence-sitting independent/moderates to decide the fate/direction of political agendas and ideologies.

I honestly believe that most Americans retain a more progressive mindset, and seek "change" forward to something new and better...and not backwards to a time of comfortable recognition and resignation.

It's in our very nature to explore the new, the undiscovered, the original.

If this were not so...we'd all still be living in caves...

 

[Ciscokid]

I keep forgetting, Which one is the ***?

That's funny I think they should be reversed. I'm forever embarrassed by Republicans [they should be the ***] and the elephant should belong to the Dems to symbolize bloated Governments needing to drink and eat more and more each day [tax dollars].