All right, make me less ignorant. teach me all there is to know about politics, etc.

[SentientMeat]

Out of interest, what is your score on this? We’ve explored this test here in depth, and only 2% of people who responded said that they considered their overall result to be inaccurate (although there was debate about where the arbitrary zero intersection ought to be placed).

[cowgirl]

I’m glad you asked, Idle Thoughts, because this stuff is complicated and weird and not easy to pick up all at once. I am Canadian and our politics are different (making things even more complicated) but I will do my best to help. I am glad to answer specific questions because it’s much easier than answering “tell me everything there is to know about politics!” So keep them coming.

One of the reasons it’s so hard is because there are no objective answers to your questions. Thus, the answers I will give are from my point of view and others will almost certainly disagree with them. None of us are “right;” untangling in your mind what we mean is part of the fun!

So, let’s go:

@Idle Thoughts

What’s this about skewing left? Is there a right too? Do you have to be a right or left?

I hope Blake’s excellent post above have clarified the difference between left and right somewhat. I would add that most people do not consider themselves to be fully left or right; they are left on some things and right on others. For instance, many people are socially “left” but fiscally “right.” The terms are most useful as a relative comparison: while few people are truly “right wing,” it is useful to say “Person X is farther right than Person Y.” The terms are perhaps better applied to ideas or policies than people.

Globally, the US is much farther right than most other nations. For instance, the (far) right-wing party in Canada would probably be considered moderate in the US, and the US Democratic party (the “left wing” one) would be considered right wing in Canada.

So, to me (remember the disclaimer above about objectivity), the perception among many American posters that the board skews left is because y’all are starting out so far to the right of the rest of us. Get it?

@Idle Thoughts

What’s a conservatist (oh yes, apoligies in advance for any misspellings)? It’s the opposite of a Liberal, right? Well, what’s a Liberal?

Right-wing is often described as “conservative” while left-wing is often described as “liberal.” In the US, the Republicans are conservative (right-wing) while the Democrats are liberal (left-wing). In Canada we actually have parties with those names, ie the Conservatives and the Liberals. (To complicate matters, the Liberals are not particularly left-wing; our left-wing party is called the New Democratic Party. See, I told you it was confusing!) Capitalizing the words indicates that you’re talking about the party, instead of the adjective.

@Idle Thoughts

Communism

Based on the writings of Karl Marx. Attempts at this have been made to varying degrees of success in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. It is a specific ideology that is out of favour in the US for various historical reasons, and one of its key points is that it aims for an all-encompassing system.

socialism

Similar to communism, but IMO more of a strategy than a goal. Things like state supports (welfare, trade unions, generous vacation leaves, etc) are often described as socialist. Scandinavia and Europe are pretty socialist.

buearocracy

Bureaucracy (to spell it, think “bureau,” like in the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and then toss your “cracy” on the end) is a different matter. See, “government” has two aspects, the political side (elected representatives, political parties) and the bureaucracy (the civil servants who carry out the grunt work - policy wonks, administrators, the DMV, etc).

I know what democracy is

It just means “rule of the people.” Hopefully someone else can clarify why Democrats are called Democrats, because as far as I can tell Republicans are democrats too.

Radicals

People suggesting or believing things that are completely different from mainstream ideas. A radical idea might be something that nobody has ever considered before. Radical feminism (the use of the term that I am most familiar with) rejects the assumptions of liberal feminism and the other feminist theories that came before.

what’s someone who’s “sitting on the fence” or in the “middle of the road” doing?

Sitting on the fence means they haven’t made up their mind between two issues/parties/whatever. Middle of the road means they are moderate, that they do not generally take extreme positions.

Now, please note that the 2-party system of yours (and the slightly-more party system of ours) means that it is very unlikely that any party will fully represent the “right” or “left” wing, or perfectly represent any ideology at all. There are aspects of each party which (according to the ideologies discussed above) are quite surprising.

Hope this helps, Idle Thoughts. If you’ve got more questions, bring 'em on.

Everyone else: flame away!

[Jonathan_Chance]

I want to go back to basics. Many of you are treating the question as needing an answer within the context of existing political argument and theories. This is a step to far along for where we should be.

Here’s the basic and underlying premise:

Politics, as concerns human interaction, is the establishment of control over the actions of others.

That’s it in a nutshell.

All political parties (even the libertarians!), arguments, thoughts, positions, and so forth, are about what sort of control should be placed on others.

Politics is the enforcement of behavioral rules and norms among all members of society.

At times (frequently, in some cases) those establishing control will exempt themselves from those controls. This irritates many people and can, in time, lead to revolution and the establishment of a different sort of control over the group (or at least different controllers).

Even in a democratic system, wherein the voters choose the leaders, the effect of election is to say ‘You, there! Go and establish the controls under which I live! I delegate to you those decisions!’

[PatriotX]

Politicans lie and do the bidding of whoever butters their bread the best.

[firespinner]

Cowgirl. If you think the Canadian system is complicated you should see the Irish one. We not only have left-right but wehave nationalist-non-nationalist. Our two biggest parties(Fianna Fail and Fianna Gael) are right-wing and hate each other, while the main left-wing(Labour) will go into coalition with either party. We have the liberal PD’s (who are in government with FF), the Greens who hate FF and Sinn Fein (reformed terrorists) who are trying to go with FF even though they are left-wing. (We have a proportional representation system which is more democratic but sooooo much more complicated and lets in small parties.)
The lesson - be glad you live in America, the system is slightly less democratic but at least you onlyhave to chose between two.

[Acsenray]

I, for one, applaud your interest in or desire to learn about this kind of stuff, but it seems to me that asking us to explain big concepts and big terms is not necessarily a good way of going about it.

When it comes right down to it, an interest in politics is an interest in other people, the people around you and the people around the world. It doesn’t make any sense to ask what “conservative” and “liberal” mean on an abstract basis, because most people who are interested in and knowledgeable about politics don’t agree on what they mean.

The only way to really learn is to get started. Start reading your local newspaper and using a national news source (I recommend N.P.R. All you need is a radio.). Invest say 30 minutes a day in reading the paper (at your local library if you don’t want to spend the money) and say 30 minutes a day listening to “All Things Considered” or “Morning Edition.”

Register to vote and the next time an election comes around, take a copy of the voter’s guide and read it. What are the offices and issues on the ballot? How do the candidates try to persuade you to vote for them? What are the issues on the ballot? A property tax for schools? A bond issue to improve local services?

What do you think about these issues? What do you think people should be taxed for? Roads, bridges, schools, libraries, cemeteries, hospitals, sports stadiums? When should people be exempted from taxes? Enterprise zones? New businesses? New construction?

What about your environment do you like or not like? Do you like the fact that you can use a publicly funded bus system? Do you not like the fact that utility companies tear up the streets and sidewalks and then not fund them properly?

Think about how these things affect you and the people around you.

Then you might start thinking about things on a slightly more conceptual level. What does government mean to you? To me, government, ideally, is the people, getting together to do things for the common good. To some people, government is people who have been given authority over you and mean to use it to their own advantage and nothing else.

What kinds of things do you think government should be doing? Should it be building roads and bridges? Should it be providing free education to all children? Should it be building stadiums?

What kinds of things do you think government should not be doing? Do you think government should be able to restrict the sales of certain kinds of books and movies?

When government does do something, should there be restrictions on how it does them? Should there be limits on how much money can be spent in order to do something? Should there be rules on what police can do when they arrest people?

What about really big things, like war? What do you think about it and the way it’s done? Do you think it has been conducted properly or not?

Take a look at the U.S. Constitution. It’s pretty short. In fact, just turn to the Bill of Rights and read that. What do you think about it as a way of stating what government can’t do to you? Are there rights there that seem more important than others?

Be interested and learn about the community and the world you live in. That’s really the only way to begin understanding politics.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Wicked men rule the world, because they’re the only ones that want to.

I agree 100% with that. Remember, these were the guys running for class president in high school. They want power, and we all know what power does.

There is no better argument for limitted government than that simple fact. It’s a bad idea to give the guys with the guns any more power than is absolutely necessary.

[Ravenman]

Idle Thoughts, I have no problem sharing some of my thoughts on the general topics you are asking about, but please – it is a bit unreasonable to ask about nearly everything that would be covered in a semester-long college course on American politics and another one on political philsophy.

If you could pose one or two concise questions at a time, collect a few answers, and take it from there, I think people would be much more willing to give you their thoughts on these matters.

I wouldn’t mind chiming in, but there’s no way I am going to write something that briefly describes the whole political spectrum.

Pick a question or two and I’ll be happy to do my best to answer them.

[Shodan]

When liberals rule, man oppresses man.

When conservatives rule, it’s the other way around.

Also-

@P.J.O'Rourke

Republicans spend all their time out of office saying that big government doesn’t work. Every so often, they get elected, and prove it.

Regards,
Shodan

[rjung]

As long as we’re all tossing out ad-hoc philosophies:

Liberals believe that people should help each other.
Conservatives believe it’s every man for himself.

[John_Mace]

@rjung

As long as we’re all tossing out ad-hoc philosophies:

Liberals believe that people should help each other.

And they’re willing to enforce that belief at gunpoint. No thanks.

[rjung]

@John Mace

And they’re willing to enforce that belief at gunpoint.

Yeah, that’s why the NRA is such a staunchly liberal organization.

[John_Mace]

@rjung

Yeah, that’s why the NRA is such a staunchly liberal organization.

The government doesn’t need the NRA to acquire guns.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Now, boys.

Let’s not distract from a thread I’m interested in.

Shodan largely had it there, though I think it’s a spin on what I said earlier. Politics concerns who gets screwed by society.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@PeterWiggen

Just for the record, Amazon.com (as the largest online bookseller) doesn’t only accept credit cards. They also accept payment direct from your bank account, checks and cashier’s checks, and money orders.

I don’t have a savings or checking account. My mom handles all of the finances since I’m not able (read: Not allowed) to do it myself.

@Bryan Ekers

Aren’t there, y’know, libraries and things in your neighborhood?

Bookstores, yeah.

There are libraries, of course, but I can’t check books out at any of them based on past circumstances/regrets/mistakes. However, I shall check the bookstores. Shouldn’t be too hard to find.

Ravenman, let me read through this topic and all the info some have posted. I see that many in here have given me some info and knowledge and after reading it, no doubt I’ll have questions.

Thank you all for being helpful.

[John_Mace]

@Jonathan Chance

Now, boys.

Let’s not distract from a thread I’m interested in.

Shodan largely had it there, though I think it’s a spin on what I said earlier. Politics concerns who gets screwed by society.

Politics is the art of gaining and keeping power. That’s it. There are, of course, different political tactics that come into play depending on the extant rules, but in the end politicians are all angling to be the ones running things.

[BrainGlutton]

@Idle Thoughts

Tell me everything you can think of about politics and the parties, stances, opinions, etc. Maybe if I learned about it, I’d find it less boring and actually get involved more. I really do hope so too.

No problem. Let’s start with the big picture – the main post-Renaissance currents of political thought in Western civilization as a whole. From “Which Civilisation?” by Michael Lind – Prospect, 10/25/01 – http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=598:

The most influential attempts to define the post-cold war world have been those of Francis Fukuyama in The End of History and the Last Man (1992) and Samuel P Huntington, in his essay “The Clash of Civilisations” (1993). Fukuyama famously argued that liberal democracy is the final stage of human political evolution. Huntington emphasises the persistence of pre-modern linguistic, cultural and religious divisions, like those between western and eastern Christendom and Confucian and Hindu Asia.

Each of these schemas captures aspects of reality. But an alternative that deserves consideration is one that defines “civilisations” in terms, not of technological development or culture, but of world view. This approach gives us fewer civilisations than those listed by Huntington-but more than the single end-stage civilisation proposed by Fukuyama. From this perspective, the most important civilisational divide-one that seems even more important after the events of 11th September-may be the one between supernatural civilisations and secular civilisations. The divide is roughly, but not completely, correlated with the divide between pre-modern agrarian societies and industrial societies. Of the supernatural civilisations, the most significant have been the Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and the Indic (Hinduism and Buddhism). The two major Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam, conquered most of the world’s territory and people, including south Asia and the Americas. Only China and Japan, among the major non-western nations, escaped Muslim or Christian rule. Today Muslim theocracies like Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia are the most extreme examples of societies based on supernatural religion.

On the secular side of the civilisational divide, there have been three major traditions: humanism, rationalism and romanticism. These three traditions originated in Europe but now have adherents around the world. All three are essentially secular worldviews which do not need to invoke the authority of divine revelation or mystical gnosis (though some romantics are mystics or pantheists and some humanists have been religious believers). In respects other than their common secularism, the three traditions are fundamentally different from one another.

Humanist civilisation crystallised in Renaissance Italy, before spreading to the Netherlands, Britain, and the US. This liberal, commercial, increasingly democratic civilisation has spread to other nations by emulation (Lafayette’s France, Atatork’s Turkey, Yeltsin’s Russia) and by conquest and conversion (post-1945 Germany and Japan). Humanists seek to ameliorate the problems of social life with the guidance of practical wisdom, derived chiefly from history, literature and custom, with little or no reference to supernatural religion or natural science, with the possible exception of the emergent sociobiology. Humanists tend to be modest as philosophers and cautious as reformers. Examples of great humanist thinkers and statesmen are Petrarch, Erasmus, Bacon, Montaigne, Voltaire, Franklin, Hume, Burke, Smith, Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison.

Rationalism, a world view underlying a number of secular creeds, first crystallised in 17th and 18th-century France. Rationalists reject the humanist distinction between practical wisdom and natural science. The goal of rationalists of all kinds is to devise a science of society, modelled on natural science, which can serve as the basis for the construction of a “rational” social order. Stephen Toulmin makes a useful distinction between the “reasonableness” of Renaissance humanists and the “rationality” of Enlightenment philosophes. The rationalist pantheon includes social engineers like Condorcet, St Simon, Comte, Fourier, Bentham, Marx, Lenin and Ayn Rand. (The “secular humanists” who support world federalism and utopian social reform are really rationalists).

Romanticism, the third major secular world view, has spread widely from its original homeland, late 18th and early 19th-century Germany. Romantics reject both reasonableness and rationality, they exalt the inspired unreason of the artistic genius, the child, the primitive uncorrupted by civilisation. Rousseau, Emerson, Wagner, Nietszche and Frantz Fanon should be on a list of romantic prophets, and idealist philosophers like Kant and Hegel arguably are closer to romanticism than to humanism or rationalism.

The American revolution, and the French revolution in its constitutional phases, were humanist. The French terror and the Bolshevik terror were rationalist. The second world war was a struggle of three secular civilisations: humanism (Roosevelt and Churchill), rationalism (Stalin) and romanticism (Hitler). The war by Islamic radicals against the US, Europe and Israel is, among other things, a conflict between religious and humanist civilisation.

This gives us a context, a starting point before we examine the American political scene. The range of political ideas that can seriously be propounded here is notoriously narrower than in other democracies. (One 19th-Century Brit remarked that Americans, whatever their stated politics, “are all Liberals of one sort or another.”) Most American political thinking is composed of variations on humanism, in some cases shading over, on the fringes, towards religionism (much bigger deal than it used to be, now), romanticism (some Green thinking seems tinged with this), or the socialist or libertarian variants of rationalism.

More enlightenment in next post.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Blake

Broadly there are two extremes of political economic viewpoints. The Left is represented at its most extreme by true communism/socialism.

So…the left is bad then? It seems to me to be a bad way to be. After all, I’ve always heard about “commies” and all that and was under the assumption it was a bad way to be/live/etc.

Going on:

nder that ideal nobody owns anything. All property is held in common by the state and individuals are given permission to use it in order to help society.

Huh. So people are still communist today? Are there communist countries out there?

Already I’m starting to form my own opinions…and this really seems like a very limited way to live. You gave me the example of not owning your own house or car…is there any good things about living under this kind of rule? No doubt there is otherwise people wouldn’t volunteerily live like that, would they?
Oh yes, I should make a disclaimer or some sort here:

I do not wish to offend any party or political stance/opinion of anyone. I’m just learning all this as it comes to me, so please don’t take offense (if you can help it) at any of my questions. Just trying to get it all straight in my head. It’s certainly not my intention of offending anyone.
Saying that because I want to ask what the Nazi’s were. Were they communists or a type of communist party? I know that the word comes from National Socialist…and you included socialism next to communism…so are they alike?
reads on

The biggest complaint against such a system is that it relies on the goodwill of all people, and experiences teaches us that goodwill is evaporative. If everything you earn is returned to a common pool then why should you work any harder then the person next door, since you don’t; get any rewards.

Exactly. I don’t understand this way of living. What if a person doesn’t pull their weight at all? Do they still get the fruits of the labor (done by others)?

Leftist politics in Western Democracies…<snip>

That seems like an oxymoron. A leftest therefore, living in a democracy must not like it very much?

<snip>…namely that everyone should have a reasonable standard of living, healthcare etc. and that the taxation system should work to redistribute wealth to those who need it. Any sort of state welfare is, in principle, Leftist.

I’m on Social Security…so is that something, then, that the Leftists are for?

In addition Unionism is inevitably leftist, and indeed most Leftist organisations started as workers Unions.

Ohh, so there’s a lot of parties on each side. So on the Left side there are typical Leftists, Communists, Socialists, and Unionists? They are all varying degrees?

In addition many types of environmental policies are considered leftist because once again they seek to distribute environmental services like clean air to everyone equally, rather than allowing the wealthy to utilise an inordinate share of those services while denying them to the poor.

Okay…I may have been too hasty with the “bad way to be” opinion. I didn’t expect to keep it long anyway. Being Left doesn’t seem all that bad…they just seem to want equal for everyone then is what I’m getting? And in Communism, they do the extreme of actually taking things away that are yours and making them everyones.

Am I reading it right so far?

Leftist politics as practiced in democracies is criticised on a number of grounds.

Yeah, no doubt!
reads on
So what’s the differece between Communism and Socialism?

If Soviet Russia is the poster child for Leftism gone mad then 19th century Britain is probably the poster child for Right wing politics gone mad. With no collective labour bargaining and no social security people had to manage as they could. Those too old or sick to work staved in the street and children were forced to work in order to stay alive.

It’s not like that here in the USA…while it does seem to be mostly Right winged, there are things like welfare and SSI/SSD for the sick, elderly, and poor.

So in that regard, wouldn’t the USA’s standards be both right and left (in a way)?

There is nothing that specifically makes slavery wrong for example, and no specific Right wing reason to object to racism or sexism, nor is there any reason to support welfare if it produces no profits.

Huh.

Again, is this an EXTREME Right winged way of living? Cause again, it seems to me (at least here in the USA) to be both ways. We are free to do mostly what we want, sell what we want, make money how we want (just so long as all things are legal, however, even that doesn’t stop people), and keep to ourselves for our own needs. However this is still help and equal rights and sharing for those other classes like other races, genders, wealth classes.

The second advantage of unbridled capitalism is choice.

Capitalism? Is that another word for being right winged?

Thank you for helping me out and starting the thread by informing me of those things. I’m soaking it up like a sponge.

All I ask and hope for is that people in here try to be patient a bit with me.

@lonesome loser

Republicans bad.

Most Democrats good.

All you need to know.

Are Republicans usually more Leftist? Are Dems usually more rightist?

Or am I mixing facts and comparing apples to oranges?

@amarinth

Second, do you remember anything at all from civics or or history or government or social studies class other than the word “democracy”? (because you seem confused on the definition).

Not really. To me democracy is having someone elected run the country, but while still letting rights and freedoms come to the people. Things like Freedom of Speech and Human rights for things.

But correct me if I’m wrong (which I probably am or missing a lot of the peices).

If someone said “Choice A sounds a lot better than Choice B” they would be liberal or conservative with regard to that issue - correspondingly, the person who said “Choice B seems to be better than Choice A” would be conservative or liberal (those two are opposites).

Oohhh!

So nobody can be a conservative liberal?

Where do conservatists and liberals fit on the left/right scale? (I’d assume libs would be more right and conservatists would be more left).

The people who take it one step farther, “Choice A is the only choice! Ever! Choice B people are evil” or “Of course I’m for Choice B. Choice A people should die horrible painful deaths!” are the radicals and reactionaries. Radicals are the extreme liberals and reactionaries the are extreme conservatives.

Wow…more info. I bet the Nazi’s must have been extreme conservatists then…or…reactionaries? That would be extreme (extreme EXTREME) Left?

@Little Nemo

Democrats believe in increased social services, are pro-union, want enviromental regulations, are pro-choice, support public education systems, and support minority rights.

Republicans believe in increased defense spending, are pro-business, want fewer government regulations, are pro-life, support school choices, and support community values.

nods Thank you.

@cowgirl

Globally, the US is much farther right than most other nations. For instance, the (far) right-wing party in Canada would probably be considered moderate in the US, and the US Democratic party (the “left wing” one) would be considered right wing in Canada.

Ah, yes…that’s what it seemed like to me too.

Right-wing is often described as “conservative” while left-wing is often described as “liberal.”

Ahhh. More things that are confirmed to me. Thank you!

In the US, the Republicans are conservative (right-wing) while the Democrats are liberal (left-wing).

Bureaucracy (to spell it, think “bureau,” like in the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and then toss your “cracy” on the end) is a different matter. See, “government” has two aspects, the political side (elected representatives, political parties) and the bureaucracy (the civil servants who carry out the grunt work - policy wonks, administrators, the DMV, etc).

Okay…so bureaucracy doesn’t have anything to do with political stance then, just the inner workings of a government?

Well, I’m trying to learn everything here so that helps to know.

Radical feminism (the use of the term that I am most familiar with) rejects the assumptions of liberal feminism and the other feminist theories that came before.

Weird. I’d think that feminists would all be on the same side anyway.

Thank you cowgirl!
Johnathan Chance, that’s a good way to put it.

@PatriotX

Politicans lie and do the bidding of whoever butters their bread the best.

Ha, well THAT I already knew.
acsenray, I read over your entire post and it makes sense. I will start doing things in real life too that help me understand it better.

@rjung

As long as we’re all tossing out ad-hoc philosophies:

Liberals believe that people should help each other.
Conservatives believe it’s every man for himself.

Ahhh, now THAT is in simple, easy to understand terms.

Thank you.

[BrainGlutton]

American liberalism and the Democrats:

The word “liberalism,” in its original, 19th-Century usage, was used to mean what we now call “classical liberalism” or “libertarianism” – minimal government in all things, especially the economy, and most especially WRT tariff barriers. (“Liberals” in the 19th Century were instrumental in the abolition of the UK’s Corn Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_laws) and in the reforms which, by gradual stages, made the House of Commons into something closer to a democratically elected representative assembly.)

In modern American usage, the term refers to the general currents of the “Roosevelt Coalition” or “New Deal Coalition” and its successors, which constituted the hegemonic prevailing wisdom in American politics until the Reagan Revolution. In practical/electoral terms, the “Roosevelt Coalition” was an alliance of patrician liberals such as FDR with labor unions, etc. It was committed to some elements of a social-democratic welfare state, plus Keynesian economics (in a nutshell, government spending, even deficit spending, can be indispensable to stimulate a national economy). From the mid-50s to the '70s, “liberalism” was also associated with the black Civil Rights movement. At the left edge “liberal” politics shade over into socialism or even communism, although whether the “liberal” label remains appropriate at that point is debatable. Some prefer the terms “leftist” or “progressive.”

At present, in American politics, we can (arguably) identify the following distinct trends as occupying the “left” side of the map:

1. Neoliberals – business liberals, dedicated to free markets and the efficient integration of the “global economy.” Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council.

2. Left-liberals – dedicated to the conventionally “leftist” politics of the past 30 years, including “political correctness,” the upper-middle-class form of feminism, race-based affirmative action, and a moderate environmentalism.

3. Labor leaders – still struggling to find political relevance although only a shrinking minority of the modern American labor force is unionized. (There is a Labor Party (http://www.thelaborparty.org/) but it has never run any candidates for office.)

4. Socialists – of various branches and parties, all politically/electorally marginal. The least marginal are probably the Socialist Party USA (http://www.sp-usa.org/) and the Democratic Socialists of America (http://www.dsausa.org/).

5. Greens – centered on serious environmentalism; also emphasize “social justice” issues that go way beyond what the “left-liberals” want to talk about. Actually there are two Green parties in the U.S. – the Green Party of the United States (Green Party) (http://www.gp.org/), and the smaller, more stridently leftist The Greens/Green Party USA (http://www.greenparty.org/). Both proclaim the same “Ten Key Values” – one of which is “Decentralization,” which distinguishes the Green vision from most models of socialism.

6. Multiculturalists – black and Latino racial separatist groups, Nation of Islam, La Raza, etc.

7. New Age liberals – I can’t think of any better label for the grouping represented by the Natural Law Party (http://www.natural-law.org/), which was based on transcendental meditation, among other things. (It disbanded last year.)

Of these, neoliberals, left-liberals and labor are the most important forces within the Democratic Party; the others make do with third-party politics, or bite their lips and support the Dems. Of course, the Democratic Party also includes socially conservative elements, exemplified by Zell Miller.

[Lemur866]

And don’t forget that many “leftists” seem to despise “liberals” for various reasons. Depends on how you define liberal, though. But generally someone who calls themselves a leftist rejects incrementalism and believes in the wholesale transformation of society.

And while “conservatives” in the US generally are staunch believers in capitalism this hasn’t been the case in most countries. Conservatives in Europe (for example, Le Pen) are often economic nationalists who believe that the state/people should control the economy. In Europe capitalism is usually labeled a “liberal” value.
Liberals were typically:
Capitalist and pro-trade
Pro-industry
Republican (ie, anti-monarchial)
Pro religious freedom
Internationalist
In favor of a small standing military
Equalitarian
Rationalist
Urban

Conservatives were typically:
Mercantilist and suspicious of trade
Pro-agriculture
Monarchist
Pro state religion
In favor of a large standing military
Isolationist
Authoritarian
Romanticist
Rural

Of course, in today’s American usage liberal and conservative mean completely different things, and frequently mean the exact opposite of what they used to mean.