Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
I would really like to know why you find it obvious that slavery is conservative and emancipation is liberal. I'm sorry, but slavery simply isn't a left-right issue.... unless you believe liberal vs. conservative is equivalent to good vs. evil.
|
So slavery was a good vs. evil dispute. Can't fault that. And I don't fault conservatives of today for wanting to disassociate with slavery. Obviously, you don't believe in it, and neither do I. My understanding has always been that those who opposed slavery were the liberal thinkers of those days, and the socially conservative thinkers, especially in the South, were against abolishing slavery. There were many other factors involved, including but not limited to: States' rights vs. Federal government, urbanization vs. plantation economy, and in some ways, white vs. black. So, again, in summary, slavery isn't conservative, but conservative thinkers were more likely in those days to support it, and liberal thinkers were more likely to fight it. Now, I'm actually not that confident about this assertion, so forgive me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Here you seem to be saying that Republicans, who called themselves "conservatives", opposed the New Deal. This is taken by you as evidence that opposing the New Deal is the conservative thing to do. Conversely, since the "liberal" party favored it, the New Deal must be liberal. However, as we already agreed, party alignment does not always track ideological committment.
|
In the 1920s, conservative thinkers championed lassiez-faire, where as, in the aftermath of the Russian revoltuion, liberalism was more openly linked with "collectivism". The New Deal was a shift toward more governemtn programs and more liberal thinking. FDR was a liberal. Championing woman worker rights was a liberal thing to do, and FDR and Elanor Roosevelt both did so (ref: A Common Sense and a Little Fire--Annalise Orleck). This actually proves that the party system has nothign to do with it. The Republican party championed the more liberal cause of anti-slavery in the 1860s, the Democratic party championed the more liberal cause of taking care of the lower class and workers in the 1930s. Since then, they've continued as the more liberal party, but again, I'm makign a theory on liberalism, not the parties themselves.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
That's interesting. Your definitions of liberal and conservative seem to be nothing more than descriptions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. But, as you said earlier, "Linking liberal and conservative issues in terms of Republican and Democratic parties is wrong": the mere fact that a Republican believes something does not make that belief conservative, nor do all Democratic beliefs merit the label "liberal".
Here are my definitions of liberalism and conservatism, from Wikipedia and Radical Academy: |
Quotes from wikipedia:
1)Over the past three centuries, "liberalism" and "conservatism" have in some ways exchanged positions. It was liberalism that objected to the then status quo — tyrannical monarchies — in 18th and 19th century Europe. Liberals espoused the importance of individual rights relative to the government. As more democratic governments have succeeded overall in replacing monarchies and dictatorships, it is the conservatives who have become the champions of individual rights versus intrusions into the private sector by big government.
2)Two old words now took on new meaning. "Liberal" no longer referred to classical liberalism but now meant a supporter of the New Deal; conservative meant an opponent. (From the article ont the New Deal)
Conservatives now (in this century especially) are in favor of small government. Now look, we are making broad generalizations. There are tons of distinctions in the two movements, there are subgroups and sometimes endless contradictions. The point remains, that I am not defining the two parties. Why would I call the 1860s Republican party liberal and the 1930s Republican party conservative?
Seriously, if you think the New Deal was a "conservative" victory, because the classical definition says so, then sure, you are correct. But you are also living in the wrong century.