-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you define a liberal? A conservative?
- Thread starter Quetzal
- Start date
When I use liberal in current discussions, I mean someone who is a patriot, is in favor of science, believes in fair play and that everyone should have an equal shot no matter what their background is. A liberal also believes that the environment is important such as clean air and water, safe drugs and housing built to modern standards. And that government can play a positive role in society mitigating unbridled greed.
Classically conservatives were patriots, believed in small government, private enterprise and democracy. Currently when I use the word conservative, I mean someone who is unpatriotic, anti-science, pro-dictatorship, loves to lie, cheat & steal, believes that government's role is to protect big-business, allow pollution, promote "caveat emptor" protecting business against consumer lawsuits, give tax cuts to the wealthy while driving the poor deeper into poverty and so forth including throwing seniors under the bus.
Classically conservatives were patriots, believed in small government, private enterprise and democracy. Currently when I use the word conservative, I mean someone who is unpatriotic, anti-science, pro-dictatorship, loves to lie, cheat & steal, believes that government's role is to protect big-business, allow pollution, promote "caveat emptor" protecting business against consumer lawsuits, give tax cuts to the wealthy while driving the poor deeper into poverty and so forth including throwing seniors under the bus.
Someone needs a rolled up newspaper batting his nose.
To me, a liberal is someone who basically wants to maintain the status quo, but is willing to make relatively minor changes in order to preserve the status quo. So, for instance, a liberal might be willing to raise the minimum wage a relatively small amount in order to reduce political pressure to make a much more significant change in the minimum wage.
To the left of liberals are progressives. Progressives also wish to preserve the status quo -- at least most of it -- but are more motivated by a desire to "set things right", "see justice done", "make things fair", or "level the playing field" than are liberals. So for instance, a progressive would most likely be in favor of raising the minimum wage, not just enough to reduce political pressure to raise it further, but enough to insure that everyone had at least a basic living wage.
To the right of progressives and liberals are neoliberals. Neoliberals do not wish to maintain the status quo, but rather favor the rule of the uber rich and large corporations over more democratic institutions and generally support policies that result in the transfer of wealth from the middle and poor classes to the top 1% or so of the population. Neoliberals tend to be supported in their efforts by some liberals and some conservatives -- who are either witting or unwitting allies.
Conservatives. There are few genuine conservatives left in the US, but to get an idea of what they were once like, see Dwight Eisenhower. However, genuine conservatives have been in decline since the Reagan years, and are no longer much of a force on the national level. They have been largely replaced by people calling themselves "conservative", but who no more want to conserve the status quo than do the neoliberals. Indeed, today's conservatives are often in alliance with neoliberals on various policy issues involving the transfer of wealth from the middle and poor classes to the top 1% of the population. The main difference between today's conservatives and neoliberals, is that neoliberals do not care all that much about social issues, while today's conservatives tend to care deeply about social issues -- such as imposing limits on abortion, reversing LGBT marriage rights, and so forth.
That at least, is a gloss of my understanding of some of the factions in US politics today.
To the left of liberals are progressives. Progressives also wish to preserve the status quo -- at least most of it -- but are more motivated by a desire to "set things right", "see justice done", "make things fair", or "level the playing field" than are liberals. So for instance, a progressive would most likely be in favor of raising the minimum wage, not just enough to reduce political pressure to raise it further, but enough to insure that everyone had at least a basic living wage.
To the right of progressives and liberals are neoliberals. Neoliberals do not wish to maintain the status quo, but rather favor the rule of the uber rich and large corporations over more democratic institutions and generally support policies that result in the transfer of wealth from the middle and poor classes to the top 1% or so of the population. Neoliberals tend to be supported in their efforts by some liberals and some conservatives -- who are either witting or unwitting allies.
Conservatives. There are few genuine conservatives left in the US, but to get an idea of what they were once like, see Dwight Eisenhower. However, genuine conservatives have been in decline since the Reagan years, and are no longer much of a force on the national level. They have been largely replaced by people calling themselves "conservative", but who no more want to conserve the status quo than do the neoliberals. Indeed, today's conservatives are often in alliance with neoliberals on various policy issues involving the transfer of wealth from the middle and poor classes to the top 1% of the population. The main difference between today's conservatives and neoliberals, is that neoliberals do not care all that much about social issues, while today's conservatives tend to care deeply about social issues -- such as imposing limits on abortion, reversing LGBT marriage rights, and so forth.
That at least, is a gloss of my understanding of some of the factions in US politics today.
Patriotism is tribalism; preferential moral or political consideration for your own in-group. This is not just; not fair; not Christian.
Liberals are co-operative; conservatives, competitive.
A liberal believes government exists "to promote the general welfare."
A liberal believes in the Golden Rule -- "neither Jew nor gentile, slave nor free, male nor female." All pull together as a single community; a single co-operative.
A conservative believes in conventionalism; the status quo. A conservative discriminates against dissidents and out-groups. A conservative puts the interests of himself and his tribe before the interests of the people.
Conservatives are throwbacks. They're tribal. They fear novelty or change. They have Pleistocene brains -- eminently functional for a band of hunter-gatherers, but dysfunctional in modern, civilized societies.
Augustus
…
What they usually mean: Someone who votes for the Republican (of equivalent) someone who votes Democrat (or equivalent)
They no longer have much actual meaning outside of that. Bush's neo-con foreign policy was radically progressives for example, and several Trump policies overlap with Sanders ones than 'establishment' Republican ones.
Traditionally though, a conservative has a pessimistic view of human nature and is sceptical about change due to the limitations of human moral and intellectual capacity. Wisdom is thus contained in tradition. Centralisation and government intervention is harmful because it multiplies inevitable failings of politicians across all of society.
Liberal, in the sense of contrast with conservative, has a more optimistic view of human nature and a post-Enlightenment faith in human rationality as a guideline for behaviour. Because wisdom comes from the application of individual reason to human problems, the job of government is to remake society according to perceived benefits. The perceived result of this is melioristic progress.
The problem of conservatism is when a healthy scepticism towards change becomes an outright resistance towards it in all forms, retaining the indefensible as it is 'tradition'.
The problem of liberalism is that humans suck at identifying benefits and remaking society in a manner to achieve them because the conservatives were more right about human nature. It also can also quite easily lead to hubris and utopianism.
They no longer have much actual meaning outside of that. Bush's neo-con foreign policy was radically progressives for example, and several Trump policies overlap with Sanders ones than 'establishment' Republican ones.
Traditionally though, a conservative has a pessimistic view of human nature and is sceptical about change due to the limitations of human moral and intellectual capacity. Wisdom is thus contained in tradition. Centralisation and government intervention is harmful because it multiplies inevitable failings of politicians across all of society.
Liberal, in the sense of contrast with conservative, has a more optimistic view of human nature and a post-Enlightenment faith in human rationality as a guideline for behaviour. Because wisdom comes from the application of individual reason to human problems, the job of government is to remake society according to perceived benefits. The perceived result of this is melioristic progress.
The problem of conservatism is when a healthy scepticism towards change becomes an outright resistance towards it in all forms, retaining the indefensible as it is 'tradition'.
The problem of liberalism is that humans suck at identifying benefits and remaking society in a manner to achieve them because the conservatives were more right about human nature. It also can also quite easily lead to hubris and utopianism.
A good topic idea came up from @Mestemia in another thread.
How do you define each? When you hear the terms used in discussion, what kind of person are you envisioning?
Note: Let's keep this civil and not personal.
A conservative is someone who wants to conserve or preserve existing institutions out of a fear of change and the uncertainities it produces.
A liberal is someone who supports economic and/or political liberty. So that can range from democratic socialists (political but not economic liberty) to right wing libertarians (with both economic and political liberty). Anarchists often have some overlap with liberals in their idea about liberty but go much much further. Most ideologies nowdays share some liberal ideas and only a handful are really anti-liberal.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
I think this covers everything as I understand it.
Economic Liberal: Someone who believes that government needs a more active role in certain social works and economic endeavours, and its greater influence will maximise the good of everyone.
Economic Conservative: Some who believes that government is a barrier to social works and economic endeavours, and its reduced influence will maximise the good of everyone.
------------------------------
Social Liberal: Someone who believes that the basic foundations of the social order are flexible or need to be changed for the greater good of everyone.
Social Conservative: Someone who believes that the basic foundations of the social order are inflexible, necessary, and should not be changed to preserve the good of everyone.
-------------------------------
Stuff that makes no sense to support if you're a Liberal: Supporting hawkish foreign policy, corporate welfare/stimulus packages, Obamacare (should be a single payer system), federal education standards (that are draconian and backward thinking).
Stuff that makes no sense to support if you're a Conservative: Supporting infrastructure spending, restricting free trade with tariffs, isolationist foreign policy, attacking the free press/investigative journalism, and frankly. . . social security and medicare.
Stuff that makes no sense at all: Obsessing over identity politics, obstructing routine judicial appointments, buying into conspiracy theories to maintain your worldview, assuming the "other side" has anything but good intentions, and assuming that YOU. . . yes, YOU. . . are somehow oppressed. You're not, so get over yourself.
Economic Liberal: Someone who believes that government needs a more active role in certain social works and economic endeavours, and its greater influence will maximise the good of everyone.
Economic Conservative: Some who believes that government is a barrier to social works and economic endeavours, and its reduced influence will maximise the good of everyone.
------------------------------
Social Liberal: Someone who believes that the basic foundations of the social order are flexible or need to be changed for the greater good of everyone.
Social Conservative: Someone who believes that the basic foundations of the social order are inflexible, necessary, and should not be changed to preserve the good of everyone.
-------------------------------
Stuff that makes no sense to support if you're a Liberal: Supporting hawkish foreign policy, corporate welfare/stimulus packages, Obamacare (should be a single payer system), federal education standards (that are draconian and backward thinking).
Stuff that makes no sense to support if you're a Conservative: Supporting infrastructure spending, restricting free trade with tariffs, isolationist foreign policy, attacking the free press/investigative journalism, and frankly. . . social security and medicare.
Stuff that makes no sense at all: Obsessing over identity politics, obstructing routine judicial appointments, buying into conspiracy theories to maintain your worldview, assuming the "other side" has anything but good intentions, and assuming that YOU. . . yes, YOU. . . are somehow oppressed. You're not, so get over yourself.
Liberals see government as a co-op -- of, by and for the people.
Conservatives fear government, and see its only legitimate functions as contract enforcement and national defense -- against the hordes of unconventional "others," whom they fear even more than government.
Liberals love their neighbors.
Conservatives fear their neighbors.
Liberals see others as basically good.
Conservatives see others as competitors, and not to be trusted -- especially if they're not of your tribe.
Conservatives fear government, and see its only legitimate functions as contract enforcement and national defense -- against the hordes of unconventional "others," whom they fear even more than government.
Liberals love their neighbors.
Conservatives fear their neighbors.
Liberals see others as basically good.
Conservatives see others as competitors, and not to be trusted -- especially if they're not of your tribe.
If they are willing to cut their you know what for sex or religion they are a true liberal or conservative.A good topic idea came up from @Mestemia in another thread.
How do you define each? When you hear the terms used in discussion, what kind of person are you envisioning?
Note: Let's keep this civil and not personal.
Conservatives favor small government outside of defense and security. This means low taxation, and less governmental regulations (compared to their counterpart).
Liberals favor government overreach, or promoting general welfare via governmental policies and institutions. This means higher taxation, or even punitive taxation and thus more governmental regulations (compared to their counterpart).
Conservatives tend to embrace a free market as way to resolve economic inequality, and find governmental policies to be a disruptor to such a market. (Some) liberals loathe a free market and believe there is no such thing as too many regulations on a market that may engage in discriminatory practices. If the potential exists for such practice, liberals would seek to curtail that potential with (zealous) regulations.
*note: where I say liberals, I may mean Progressives. I think of liberals more on the social aspect of society than political, but realize within the ongoing political game that many Progressives will self identify as liberal or be filtered through partisan political theater as such.
Liberals favor government overreach, or promoting general welfare via governmental policies and institutions. This means higher taxation, or even punitive taxation and thus more governmental regulations (compared to their counterpart).
Conservatives tend to embrace a free market as way to resolve economic inequality, and find governmental policies to be a disruptor to such a market. (Some) liberals loathe a free market and believe there is no such thing as too many regulations on a market that may engage in discriminatory practices. If the potential exists for such practice, liberals would seek to curtail that potential with (zealous) regulations.
*note: where I say liberals, I may mean Progressives. I think of liberals more on the social aspect of society than political, but realize within the ongoing political game that many Progressives will self identify as liberal or be filtered through partisan political theater as such.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Which is why conservatives believe (based on the laws passed in conservative states), that vibrators should be outlawed, that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry one another, that the government should step-in on patient-doctor interactions if the patient is a woman, and that assisted suicide should be illegal.
"overreach" is an opinion. You should have said "large government". With things like heathcare, social secuirty, welfare, roads, police, fire-fighters, public schools, public support of hospitals, etc.
Oddly: Most poor conservatives seem to be liberal when it comes to their own personal experiences. The displaced miners in coal country want the government to do something about it for them (they lost their jobs to cheap natural gas). The conservatives getting their jobs shipped overseas because of cheaper labor (capitalism) want the government to step in and do something about that too.
Sometimes they think there's a conservative answer ("if only we would lower corporate taxes"), but they are generally (though not always) mistaken (Ireland has low corporate taxes... it gets corporations to file there; but does nothing to put people to work).
I'm not sure whether to respond in kind, to illustrate your caricature of both sides, or whether to correct you.
Of course liberals believe a regulation can be unnecessary... and we love a free market for goods with elastic demands and in a market where competition exists.
We just don't think the factory should be able to dump mercury in the water table with impunity, nor that the poor should die for the inability to afford healthcare. According to you: you do.
Didn't we try that back in the Gilded Age? As I recall it all crashed and burned in '29.
Wasn't the depression of '82 caused by the rollback of New Deal corporate and banking regulations over the past 35 years?
Without regulations we'll get a proliferation of psychopathic, predacious corporations and banks (and later monopolies) milking the general public for every cent they can get. We'll get a dog-eat-dog society with no consumer protections, social services or safety nets. We'll get runaway pollution and environmental collapse.
The policies and institutions the conservatives favor are ones of propriety, loyalty, correct beliefs and conventionalism, not regulations that would actually promote freedom, happiness, security, or the general welfare.
The Neoliberal, deregulatory 'freedom' we got with the Reagan revolution has gutted the middle class, sent jobs overseas, and put medical care, education security and prosperity beyond the reach of ever larger segments of the population.
But the free market has had exactly the opposite effect. It's resulted in the greatest income inequality since the '20s. It's destroying the middle class that the New Deal regulations created.
Rather than give the foxes unrestricted access to the henhouse, progressives promote regulation to protect the public from exploitative corporations and bankers. Progressives promote a co-operative society where everyone contributes to the prosperity of the whole.
The progressive regulations you denounce gave us America's golden age of prosperity and economic growth. The free market you promote is creating a society of oligarchs and serfs.
From "less regulations" you got "without regulations." Interesting, and very liberal.
It's bizarre that you believe this nonsense.
Ditto.
