On the whole matter of defining liberal vs conservative, I offer the analogy of liberals as the ones who are tromping on the gas while conservatives are the ones tromping on the brakes.
With the extreme examples of those who want to careen down the road out of control and those who just want to sit unmoving in the driveway, with most of us in-between.
Makes me wonder sometimes who’s steering.
No one is steering, of course.
As to the OP, it’s easy to look back at all the changes that have brought us to where we are, approve of the changes, and claim that the people who fought for the changes are more like us than those we oppose.
OTOH, where we are is a mixture of successful and unsuccessful attempts at change. If you and I are only like the people who wanted the good changes, modern conservatives are like the people who resisted the bad changes.
So in the terms you use to frame the argument, the conservatives were right when in the 30’s they resisted more socialism than you’d be happy with now. They were right when they wanted to hold the country together in the years before the civil war. They were right, arguably, when they judged deficit spending on the war machine was an effective way to combat global communism. Etc.
From a larger perspective, it’s just not possible to know what’s going to turn out to have been a good idea. The best you can do is use your judgement and fight for what you believe in without demonizing the people with opinions that differ from yours. I think one way to proceed with this is to avoid slapping labels on people. Even if others do it to you, there are few people who could be described as conservative on everything… even december differs with the main body of party on abortion rights, for example. And someone above is a liberal gun-rights advocate, I’d judge.
If the Revolution was a liberal idea, does that mean torturing and murdering people in public by covering them in tar and setting them on fire was a liberal idea? After all, opponents of the Revolution had that done to them. So I think we can classify “public incineration of political opponents” as a bad “liberal” idea.
I’d say Vietnam’s a good example, too.
Trolls 1; Goobers:0
“Liberal” and “Conservative” have been bandied about this forum without any one making an attempt to define the terms or even to understand the terms. (NOTE: Kudos to BJOHN13 for starting to get the ball moving in this direction.)
It seems that ZOO posits “conservatives” to mean any group opposed to change and “liberals” to be any group the favors change. Similarly BEARFLAG70 construes “consversatives” to be those who favor greater governmental control over people’s private lives. I do not dispute the validity of these defintions for particular, narrowly focused purposes. But they are not universally applicable. For example, a ZOO “liberal” may want to seize all private property and turn all workers into state employees (think a Marxist-Lenninist revolution). However, this could advance the power of the state over the individual and be a “conservative” measure according to BEARFLAG70.
Despite this, the term “liberal” is fairly well-defined at least in academic, historical, and economic circles. I will call this “classic liberal” to avoid confusion with other definitions used on this thread. The Classic Liberal supports the free market, free trade, minimal government intervention in the economy, the rule of law, transparency in government. When economists talk about “economic liberalization” they refer to the dismantelling of state-control over the economy; not about expanding healthcare, welfare, or other programs. Similiarly, “liberal” applied to political systems implies elections, rule-of-law, clean government, civil service reform; not Bill Clinton, Tony Blair or Gerhardt Schroeder.
In the U.S., Britain, and Europe, “liberal” means the opposite of “Classic Liberal.” Liberals - in the form of the Democratic Party in America, the Labour Party in Britain, and the various Social Democratic Parties on the continent - tend to favor greater governmental control over the economy; renationalization of industries; transfer of power to un-elected autocrats in Brussels (at least in Europe).
Anyway, my point is that one can define “liberal” or “conservative” anyway they want. To have a coherent discussion on this topic, people need to have some frame of reference as to what “liberal” and “conservative” mean. It is too simplistic to say “liberal = good” and “conservative = bad.”
Especially when those of us who consider ourselves “conservatives” know you have that backwards. All the right-thinking folk know liberal = bad; conservative = good.
Thanks for the cite. I think you are referring to my insistance that liberal policy is sometimes good, and conservative policy is also sometimes good. Continual policy from either side of the spectrum for any extened period of time will only lead to totalitarianism; hence, the reason why some people tend to think that socialism and fascism are both liberal forms of government.
We seem to disagree on some basic points, but I think we can agree with what I just stated, if that is indeed what you intended to say.
I am a conservative.
I am not a good dancer.
I spend too much time playing video games.
I am too thin.
I eat too much junk food.
So, yes. I am a conservative, and I am flawed. Are you happy now?
No he won’t because he’ll still be alive!
There is an old saying which says "Living well is the best revenge", which I’ve always taken to mean to outlive ones enemies. Regan has outlived pretty many of his [political] enemies, but not all of them. I think he’s going to hang on until they’re all gone. Seriously!
It is said that if one is a Republican when they are young, they have no heart and if one is a Liberal when they are older, they have no brain.
So which is it? Tin man or Scarecrow?
My interpretation of “conservative” vs “liberal” in the US.
Conservative - The constitution is a “literal” document. It means exactly what it says.
Liberal - The constitution is a “living” document. It can be interpreted according to the current socio-political atmosphere.
I disagree with that quote. It seems to me that the definition of “liberal” and “conservative” changes through times…so what was viewed as liberal fifty years ago may well be considered conservative today.
The “change” vs “no change” types were what I intended to represent. I don’t think the “good” vs “bad” can be defined so easily.
What Ulterior said.
I’m a conservative.
Well, I’m a conservative in that I consider myself to be one, I vote that way, and I tend to believe in small government, lower taxes, the “War on Terror”, and the like.
I’m also:
Liberal and conservative are very wanting as descriptive terms. Indeed, here in Australia, the conservative party is actually called The Liberal Party.
You seem to be putting liberals and conservatives over the years into two types of people, when in reality, the liberals of the 1770s are a lot more like the conservatives of today than the liberals of today. So comparing them as historic groups of people with assumed common traits seems off to me.
Actually, it was a Churchill quote and he wasn’t referring to the American parties - but I do believe he was referring to Britain’s more socialist party and their more conservative party.
It makes sense, in that context, anyway. When everyone is young, and full of ideals, they think government is the solution to righting all the wrongs in society. When they get older, if they’re smart, they realize that centralized control of society creates more problems than it solves.
If zoo believes that “liberals” started the American Revolution, he must also think that “liberals” were strongly in favor of maintaining slavery, which the Founding Fathers, um, Framers were.
These here definitions is tricky.
Actually, I was under the impression that most of the founding fathers were uneasy with slavery, but couldn’t do anything about it due to it’s economic necesity.
But yes, your point is valid - because people tended to follow one idea that was considered liberal then doesn’t mean that they’d generally follow other ideas we link with liberalism now.
Care to elaborate on that observation, Shodan?
[sub]And don’t you dare blame Whoopi Goldberg on the left![/sub]
My interpretations of “conservative” vs “liberal” in these modern times are:
Conservative:“What’s mine is mine. Keep your hands off!”
Liberal:“Look at that poor person. He has nothing. Let’s give him…some of yours!”