Liberal vs Conservaitive: Explain.
 

I understand the difference between right and left wing, i.e capitalism v.s communism.

However, we don't really have liberal vs conservative over here. Could someone explain what it is about? I get the impression that it is related to left & right, but not really the same.

I would feel very strongly that people deserve complete freedom (liberty), and that they should be able to make up their own mind about what they do with their life. People should be allowed to whatever they want, assuming that it doesn't hurt others. It is not up to morality police to tell me what I can and can't do with my life. For this reason I am all for the legalisation of marajuana amd prostitution etc, despite having no personal interest in them. Does this make me a liberal? Or am I taking the term too literally?

Careful..
 

Well, basically, without the polysci BS, liberal = left wing, conservative = right wing.

As far as your own beliefs, I think you're taking the term a bit too, erm, liberally.

Being a liberal means you generally believe in reform. You like to move forward, or challenge the status quo. Being a liberal in general means you're more open to change, and see the benefits and the advantages of a changing society. It can also mean that you're more of a free-thinker, etc.. but that's really stretching the boundaries of the word in a political sense.

Being a conservative means you believe in keeping things the way they are. Don't fix what isn't broken. A belief in the idea that we're better off believing in the actions we've taken as a society in the past, and there's no sense in taking risks. "Stay the course."

Now, on both ends of the spectrum you have what are called Radicals and Reactionaries. Radicals are far-far left wing liberals, and they believe in RADICAL change, often times no matter the cost. A radical may seek to abolish all government for instance. Reactionaries are, yes, far-far right wing conservatives, and they believe in actually returning to the values of the past. A reactionary may want to reinstitute slavery.

That's obviously a very broad-based approach, but hopefully it gave you the outline you were looking for.

liberals tend to believe that govt should stay out of social issues (like gay rights or abortion), while conservatives believe that govt should intervene in social issues.


economically, liberals are for a bigger social net, taking care of people who cant take care of themselves.

conservatives believe everyman for themselves. much less (or none?) social net. less taxes.

In every day conversatin, Liberal means a Democrat and Conservative means a Republican.

This gets confusing because the terms Liberal and Conservative have historically meant something else. For example, almost all Republicans support the right to free press, even though this idea is historically associated with Liberalism.

So the real question is "What is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?" Short answer: not much.

Ok, thanks for that!

So what is someone who's agrees with the liberals on social issues and the conservatives on taxes considered?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a Libertarian?

Well Sun Tzu, I'm assuming you mean a contemporary conservative right wing belief in lower taxes and the free market. If so you might say that such a person is socially liberal and economically liberal - Kind of an Ayn Rand/Milton Freidman type. This is very much the way of the libertarian party, the more right wing libertarians often focusing mainly on the economic aspect.

A left winger may often be socially liberal and economically conservative; wishing to protect local industry and union jobs, and retain the public service.

There are those who could be economically conservative and socially conservative - most of the people I know who fit that description tend to be Catholics for some reason.:)

i dont wanna start an arguement till 4th is over, but ...


then why are most media sources left wing?

I'd like to contest this, though only in definition. Both "liberals" [Democrats] and "conservatives" [Republicans] are in favor of the government intervening in social issues such as gay rights and abortion. Liberals [Democrats] want to "protect" everyone who isn't a straight white male by means of segregation-through-legislation, just as conservatives [Republicans] would like to do essentially the same thing by legislating away marriage and adoption for gay couples.

Whether you call yourself liberal or conservative, left-wing or right-wing, heads or tails, you are part of the same coin. Both liberals and conservatives are in favor of the status-quo, which will guarantee that heretic third-parties have no chance to make a real difference.

well, for gay rights liberals want to govt NOT to intervene w/ what people do in their bedrooms.

as for abortion, liberals dont want the govt to tell a mother what to do w/ her body.

Things have gotten so complicated lately in the U.S. political arena that it's difficult to draw straight lines between Liberal-Democrat and Conservative-Republican.

Generally speaking, liberals tend to want a "nurturing family" model of government - one in which Mom & Dad (the government) are there to provide guidance, meet basic needs, and catch you if you fall, but you're basically free to go explore and do whatever you want. This entails a minimum of interference in your personal behavior and only a moderate amount of responsibilty.

Conservatives tend to want a more "traditional authoritative family" model of government - one in which Dad's job is to raise you till you're 18, teach you how to take care of yourself, and then interfere as little as possible. This necessarily requires a certain amount of respect for authority, a strong controlling hand in some areas, somewhat limited freedom if your actions jeopardize the family, and a high amount of responsibility.

There are weird areas where things seem to cross over - conservatives don't want anybody to rock the boat, so although they value individualism over government intervention, they also demand a certain level of conformity. Liberals are very concerned about personal freedoms, but also seem to be more community-oriented in terms of people taking care of each other, not in terms of telling others what to do.

Apologies to cognitive psychologist George Lakoff for chopping his book "Moral Politics" into three sloppy paragraphs.

This is about the best I've ever heard for descriptions of liberal and conservative. Thanks for your two cents worth.

A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

Hate crime legislation, affirmative action, and "protected groups" designation are all ways in which liberals intervene via the government in regards to gay rights.

I'm not even going to touch upon abortion on this thread, since it's been dealt with on two other threads in the last couple of weeks.

The term I generally hear for this group is fiscal conservative. Although, depending on the degree of liberalism and conservatism, Liberatarian would work too.

Thing about Liberals that drives me nuts is how "compassionate" they are. It's really easy to be compassionate with someone elses money.

I don't find this to be true.

Name a radio talkshow personality that is left wing?

I think TV is fairly unbiased considering who is running them. The people who own media tend to be right wing capitolists but try and let the news be news.

I have yet to see true left wing media like the right wing people have.

Hehe. That someone elses money is our money too. I promise you I pay as much in taxes as you do.

I don't understand how you can not be compassionate. Would you be able to step over a dead homeless guy that died because he had no food? Could you stand by and watch children die because the father left the mother and they have no money for food? Are you ok with mentally ill walking the streets because their families cannot afford to get them medical attention? On that note would you be ok with injured and sick people walking the streets getting you sick or bleeding on you because they cannot afford medical attention?

There is a lot to think about that you are not thinking about...

Realistically, after reading this thread the distinction between liberals and conservatives becomes quite blurred. While I somewhat agree with the above idea or explaination, I feel it's ironic that the family, which suffers under the liberal model, is used in such a positive parallel.

According to this, when a liberal idea becomes the "status quo", then a conservative who decides to change the "status quo" would, by the above definition, become a liberal.

IMO the dirty little secret is the conservative-liberal debate is like the north-south poles of a magnet. They are the same-just opposite.

I'm not sure I agree that the family suffers under the liberal model. There are aspects of conservatism and liberalism both that support different aspects of families - again, it depends on your values. Liberalism wants to provide an economic safety net for families and provide basic services, particularly for children. It could definitely be argued that liberalisms emphasis on personal freedoms threatens the traditional model of the family, but it also extends the concept of "family" to more and more people - single parents, same-sex couples, "blended" families, etc.

Conservatism on the other hand wants a very defined, traditional concept of family: mother, father, kids, one parent at home, and they try to enforce/encourage that model through their own forms of social engineering. However, they do very little to support that concept financially. The fiscal policies enacted by most conservative administrations (hoo boy am I hijacking the thread here), including the radical redistribution of wealth up the ladder and the incredible shrinking middle class, have been extraordinarily harmful to the abilities of most families to have one parent stay at home. Granted, some families could get by with less consumerism, but consumerism, even rampan consumerism, is encouraged as the backbone of the American economy, and I would argue that with a median income of $32K for a familiy of 4, this "greedy family" model is a myth perpetrated to discourage actually family-friendly but government-centric economic policies like subsidized day care, progressive taxes, extended paid family leave, universal health care, minimum wage laws, etc.

Another way in which this argument depends on your values is how much you are willng to sacrifice for stability. A conservative model would provide maximum stability and minimum flexibility, while a liberal model would be just the opposite. Why is the family, particularly the traditional family, such a valuable institution to be protected at all costs? I would argue that both models have flaws, and we see that in the swing of the political and social pendulum: the 50s were repressive so we got the excesses of freedom of the 60s and 70s, which were followed by a reaction in the 80s and 90s toward a more stable and traditional model, and I'd be willing to bet we find some kind of equilibrium soon. We're trying to get there - look at the increasing homegeneity across the political spectrum. Sure, there are outliers, but I think we're working more and more toward a happy medium.

Usually at the sacrifice of other children, whose parents could do a better job of providing for them, if they were left with more of their paycheck. "Safety nets" sometimes become a substitute for responsiblity.

Again the paycheck plays a role with taxation becoming not redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of poverty.


I couldn't agree with your assesment here more. Excess is always waste- even in politics.

I have to disagree - this is the biggest lie the American people have ever swallowed. The amount of economic inequality in the United States is unconscionable. I'm not talking about taxing people who make $100,000 a year, or even $1,000,000 a year, so that people who only make $20,000 a year can send their kids to head start. I'm talking about the astronomically wealthy top 5% who have managed to squirrel and hoard away enough wealth to effectively make a mockery of the capitalist democracy. There is more commonality between the $20K family that can't make ends meet and the $100K family who is comfortable but probably still has to struggle to get ahead, than between the $100K family and the top 5%. Did you know that something like 20% of Americans believe themselves to be in the top 1% economically, and another 20% think they'll be in the top 1% eventually? So when we talk about taxing the wealthy, most people think we mean THEM, therefore they don't support it. And the system is becoming more and more skewed toward the astronomically wealthy, and people don't seem to care because they can't stomach the idea that they probably wont' get there! They'd rather trade a more egalitarian society for a fairy tale.

Mods don't smack me for getting off track. I was provoked ;)

My sources:

http://www.lcurve.org//
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2...523_b_main.asp http://www.impactpress.com/articles/...vide80901.html
Sorry, I couldn't find a link to the poll about public perceptions of wealth and income, but it was a New York Times poll some time in the past year.

Now I can see why I was so confused to begin with! :(

Nothing to be confused about!

Geep is a conservative.
I am a liberal.

That ought to do it.

Or not.

Heh.

That's it in a nutshell! (sorry to get off track)

I pay well over 20 thousand a year in taxes, why?

Because liberals think I should share my hard ass work plus my Marine Corps pension with people who DONT want to work.

I say let them starve, look at the days before welfare.
People went and found jobs, even during the depression, people lined up for jobs just to support their families.

Now the government says here times are tough sit home and have some money of the hard workers of this nation it will get better.
And if not vote for me and I will keep the gravy train running, because you are oppressed, minority, dont have the skillls.

You are lazy, who would rather leech off the people who do, than do it yourself.

Oh the difference? Liberals= here let me help you
Conservitives= do it yourself

Good thread, people!

Just something to think about: However much you are paying in taxes, about one quarter of it goes to pay the interest on the national debt. And every single year we have a deficit budget, less and less of those taxes are going to bums without jobs, putting cops on the street, education, military, etc. and more and more of it is going to pay down, Not the actual debt, but just the interest on our debt.

I'd personally like to blame it on the baby boomers (of course they wouldn't accept responsibility for it :p).

I personally like to blame it on the Democrats, who have pretty much been in control of the budget for the last 50 years.

last time i checked, it was the president that proposed the budget to the congress

You wouldn't happen to have been born between 1946 and 1965, would you?

Anyway, the democratic congress sure had a lot to do with Reagan's runaway spending of the 80's... right, right??? Oh, in that case, they sure have had a lot to do with the runaway spending of the last 2 years? Sorry, geep, you have no one to blame this on but fellow republicans...

Liberals - want moms to be allowed to kill babies in the womb.

Conservitives - want to wait till they commit a crime.

During the years of Ronald Reagan AND George Bush (1981-1992) the average annual increase of the national budget was $47.8 Billion per year on an average annual budget of $778.5 billion or 6.14% annually. During the Clinton years (1993-2000) the average annual increase was $116.7 Billion on an average budget of $1429 Billion or 8.1% annually. Figures courtesy the OMB. The budget actually went down in 2001 under GW Bush ($2,025 Billion in 2000 and $1,991 Billion in 2001) and in 1983 under Reagan (617.7 Billion in 1982 and $600.5 Billion in 1983)
Guess another Liberal Myth goes down the tube.

but didnt clinton have the revenue to back up the spending?

didnt he have MORE than the spending?

And where did he get the 'revenue"?

From me and people of this country who were over taxed!

It's easy to have more when there's more to have. Our economy grew just $199.51 Billion/year on average for Reagan-Bush(I). During Clintons presidency it grew on average $324.6 Billion/year.(figures are indexed to 1996 dollars- so inflation doesn't count)

Yes, thanks to unwise tax cuts and deficit spending. Why can't we get a republican president to balance the budget? Millions of Americans do it every day. I'm sure you do too, geep.

*edit:
Your statistician put Reagan and Bush together in those statistics in a very self-serving way, as Bush curtailed much of the out of control spending and tax-cutting of Reagan, implying that both presidents were more fiscally disciplined than Clinton. Unfortunately, geep, you are missing the fact that Bush was paying for Reagan's excesses with tax increases and defense cuts. I'll have to wait for tomorrow at work (;)) to browse their website, but I seriously doubt your figures are coming to you directly from the OMB. Some direct links to make my fact-finding easier would be appreciated.

isnt that all the more credit to clinton?

You're right. Putting Reagan and Bush together skews the numbers, but I think they're still lower for Reagan than they are for Clinton. I culled the numbers from this report:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...4/pdf/hist.pdf

and did the math myself. You can check my math, I did it fast and could be wrong! As far as balancing my own budget goes, I have loans, too.

Edit : I went back to check my math and did indeed make a mistake. Clintons numbers are lower than Reagans. I stand corrected.

Don't worry, we're not math majors, we're political junkies ;)

how exactly did he have anything to do with it. He was just a great speaker with no soul. Because he had already sold it.
He pays for the intrest on his soul buy stealing stuff from the white house.

huh?