Hey Conservatives! What Makes a Liberal?

Great Debates
1

In recent threads, I’ve seen Al Sharpton called a “super-liberal” and Hillary Clinton’s political views described as “Socialist” and “Communist.” (Capitals in original, of course.) This leads me to believe that some people have an imperfect and–shall we say–somewhat creative idea of what these terms mean.

There’s been some discussion on the Hillary thread about this, with MEBuckner doing a fine job of puncturing the hyperbole, but I figured that misconceptions this pervasive required their own discrete discussion. So what makes a liberal, y’all? And what distinguishes a liberal, a socialist, and a communist? This question is primarily directed at those Dopers of conservative or libertarian persuasions, but it can be answered by anyone. Let’s fight ignorance instead of propagating it, hmm?

(Better yet: I consider myself a liberal…well, a progressive populist. While acknowledging the inevitable diversity of political opinion even among those of similar ideologies, I feel that I’m fairly representative of center-left Americans. So if y’all want to probe my particular beliefs in the style of an “Ask the…” thread, in order to understand how an actual liberal thinks without making up strawmen of your own, feel free. I’ll be glad to answer any questions you might have.)

2

OK, I’ll ask the first question (as opposed to venture an answer):

What makes a conservative or a libertarian?

3

  1. Views the US Constitution as a Living Document, open to broad interpretations that change with the times.

  2. Interprets the first amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” to mean a separation of Church and State. Even to the point of prohibiting the free exercise thereof… if someone works for the govt. or some public entity… even attending public school.

[I would of course argue that not allowing a public official to be a “fill in the religion” at all times. Any thing else is the “establishment” of atheism/agnosticism. There is nothing here to suggest that states could not establish an official state religion (while not requiring citizens to affiliate themselves with it).]

  1. Generally looks for government to provide a solution to societal problems measured by the dollar value spent on the problem.

This should at least get the ball rolling on this thread…BTW GOOD OP.

I would like to read your perspective (as a left of center liberal)o these issues.

4

Usually, but not always (as in cases of rebellious offspring), a mixed gender pair of conservatives, or libertarians, or liberals, or communists, etc… respectively. :smiley:

5

A brief question -

Are we talking about a U.S. context only, or a more universalist definition of “liberal” and “conservative”? Because not every one here is American, and politics change from country to country.

6

Hmmm. Deja vu all over again. It’ll be interesting to see the responses, as it was in Scylla’s recent thread regarding misconceptions of conservatism.

As a left of center American, I’ll wait for some of the “center-right” Dopers to respond before I post my own definition, but I think (as happened to Scylla) you might get just as many disparate definitions of liberalism from liberals as you do from conservatives or libertarians.
pldennison

Is this a needless hijack, Phil? Gad said “This question is primarily directed at those Dopers of conservative or libertarian persuasions, but it can be answered by anyone.” (Bolding added.)

7

To paraphrase (plagarize) from someone around here…
(I’m to lazy to search for the intial quote)
A liberal generally sees a societal, group solution to a problem, while a conservative sees an individual solution.

Both sides seem to see the other approach as completely unworkable and each “fix” one side offers tends to be looked at as furthering the problem by the other side.
Ex. Gun Control.

Liberals want more gov’t regulation, with an eye towards limiting firearms and possibly removing them from society.

Conservatives point out John Locke’s book,** More Guns, Less Crime** as proof that we need to loosen regulations and allow more guns into the hands of law abiding citizens.

Both sides see “their” solution as the only one that will lower gun crime, and see the alternative as counter productive.

(note: this is not an attempt to debate gun control in here, I’m just trying to illustrate a point)

8

Gad also said, " . . . if y’all want to probe my particular beliefs in the style of an ‘Ask the…’ thread, in order to understand how an actual liberal thinks without making up strawmen of your own, feel free." (Italics his.) If he considers himself a liberal, it’s obviously in contrast to whatever his working definition of a conservative is. I’d like to know what that definition is and, as a corollary, the working definition of libertarian, as well.

But, in any case, I’ll ask a second question as well: Do you believe that welfare programs should be implemented with the goal of supporting less-fortunate citizens over the long term, or with the goal of making themselves (the programs, not the citizens) largely obsolete except on an emergency basis?

9

With respect, Phil, that’s a whole 'nother thread. :smiley:

Alessan: The OP was concerned mostly with the US, but it’s useful to examine the American perceptions of what constitutes a “liberal” in a more universalist context-- especially since many other democracies (constitutional republics, constitutional monarchies) seem to have a more expansive view of the left-right dichotomy.

People in America, for example, tend to conflate Democrats and liberals, even though many points of general consensus by the Democratic leadership (support for the death penalty, liberalized trade, increased military spending) are considered decidedly illiberal by our small-d democratic brethren.

Mashie: Quick thumbnail; I’ll respond later in greater depth–I agree with number one, especially insofar as we recognize that the Framers were fallible and their structure of government imperfect and fraught with problematic compromise.

I don’t believe that SOCAS is necessarily the sole province of liberals, though it is largely secular. To a degree, freedom of speech and expression is a tautological concept: the boundaries of “speech” change with the time, and hence our freedom in that area is necessarily liquid, restriced by our own definitions. That doesn’t directly address your point about liberals being comfortable with the restriction of the freedom to exercise religion, but it does recognize that the concept of “free exercise” is itself, by necessity, subject to interpretation.

The language in your third point is a bit loaded–care to unpack it? I think there is a role for government in administrating social policy for the common welfare: money, however, is neither a necessary nor wholly sufficient component of that role.

More later.

10

Whoops. That was meant in response to your first post, Phil, rather than the latest one.

I think that, ideally, welfare programs should be obsolete except on an emergency basis. Failing that, however, I believe that a social safety net should exist which is not only remuneratory, but constitutive of programs which provide education, child care, job training, and an economic environment which might begin to approximate a world in which welfare is only needed in an emergency.

That is, I think it’s unacceptable that a prosperous nation not address the conditions of poverty within its own borders. It should be possible for each person working full-time to support themselves and their children. To the extent that this isn’t possible, the government should remedy the shortfall on an immediate basis while putting mechanisms into place by which those in poverty might be trained to earn a living wage.

I’ve beaten my drum in the past about the need for revitalization of the urban infrastructure. As long as we have areas of deep-rooted standard of living stratification (income, health care, legal assistance, education), there will be the need for a remuneratory safety net.

11

Freedom: I’m reasonably certain John Locke didn’t write More Guns, Less Crime. :slight_smile: Or was that covered in his treatises on civil government and the social contract?

Let me, by the way, turn this quote around for you: a liberal generally believes that ramifications for the group should be considered while formulating a solution, while a conservative is largely concerned with the effects of that solution on an individual basis. Short-term versus long-term self-interest, as I’ve articulated in several recent threads.

Isn’t anyone gonna come in here and tell me why Hillary is a capital-S socialist? I’ll expect footnoted references from the Fabian Society, you know… :wink:

12
  1. liberals like a real loose view of Amendment 10
    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I think that many of the laws on the book are unconstitutional (they should be left to the states). This is actually more related to number 1. (which you agreed with). Well the liberal view is way to “elastic” for me on this one.

13

Actually, Ronnie Lott wrote that book, didn’t he? (–Or was he the guy who shot his finger off so he wouldn’t miss a season? I can never remember…)

14

Jeepers. Am I reading this wrong, or are you suggesting that only liberals would be opposed to having Alabama proclaim itself an to be an officially Baptist State (or Rhode Island proclaiming the Roman Catholic Church to be the state church, or Minnesota having an established Lutheran Church, or Oregon having state-supported Wiccan Covens), and that conservatives would presumably be okay with those things?

15

Go tell it to the judge. :slight_smile: Seriously, I think the Supreme Court is the appropriate–and constitutionally directed–forum for determining the constitutionality of state and federal statutes when the two conflict. Furthermore, I think they’ve done a pretty fair job of it so far (Dred Scott, Plessy, Gitlow, and Lochner notwithstanding).

Anyway, I could turn that characterization around and say that conservatives (constructionist conservatives) have an extremely loose view of the Ninth Amendment.

Could you explain more how the liberal view is more elastic on the Tenth Amendment than the prevailing opinion of the courts?

16

Gadarene replied to Phil: Do you believe that welfare programs should be implemented with the goal of supporting less-fortunate citizens over the long term, or with the goal of making themselves (the programs, not the citizens) largely obsolete except on an emergency basis?
I think that, ideally, welfare programs should be obsolete except on an emergency basis.

(Another left-of-center type chiming in) How can that be, Gad? Or perhaps I should ask, what in your view constitutes an “emergency”? (And what constitutes “welfare”, e.g., are unemployment compensation and Social Security “welfare programs”?) I fail to see how it’s possible for any real-life society (except perhaps one with extremely ruthless eugenics policies) to avoid constantly having some people who are so handicapped, mentally, physically, and/or spiritually, that they’re unable to be economically independent, for most or all of their lives. And I don’t see how it’s possible for any society to avoid constantly having another part of the population that’s temporarily incapable of taking care of itself, and requires assistance to get through the bad times and move on to greater prosperity and security.

I do not think that we ought to be labeling these requirements “emergencies”. They are a normal and natural part of life in human society, as inevitable as bad weather. Of course we want to minimize dependency as far as we can, and of course we want to avoid or reform assistance programs that encourage dependency rather than help people out of it. But I think it’s an unacceptable concession to the anti-social isolationism of some conservative thought to consider public assistance “emergency measures.” Poverty and helplessness are not unforeseen “emergencies”, they are perennial problems of human life, and we’re not likely to see that change any time soon. Until we attain a utopia in which nobody is needy except as a result of truly unpredictable catastrophe, some people will never need help, some people will sometimes need help, and some people will always need help.

So my answer to Phil’s question is, Both. Yes, we want as many people as possible to be both self-reliant and able to help others, and we need to shape our assistance programs towards making that possible for them. (This part is actually kind of a straw-man question: few people, I think, would suggest that supporting needy people is preferable to helping them become able to support themselves!) But we need to take into account the fact that some people at some point in their lives will never be fully self-reliant again, if indeed they ever were. And we need to be committed as a society to alleviating their helplessness so that it doesn’t foster misery, abuse, exploitation, and crime. It may not be very attractive or popular in our selfish and greedy human existence to stand up and say “Some people will always need help, and we must always help them”; but it’s what a liberal ought to do.

(And all kidding aside, guys, it’s John R. Lott who wrote More Guns, Less Crime, so stop confusing the newbies, eh? :))

17

OK, you wanted someone to say it so I said it.

But you wanted someone to tell you why. What is a Socialist: One who advocates or practices the doctrines of socialism.

What is Socialism: A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more “just” distribution of property and labor.

So that’s the definition, but what is just. I usually equate Socialism’s distribution with a modified version of fairness. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need. I believe Hillary is for taking more from the wage earners and having the govt dole it out as it sees fit. This system encourages dependence on the government and eventually less freedom and productivity.

I think that freedom is more important than manufactured and contrived fairness. Hillary is willing to sacrafice some freedom for a government wealth redistibution program. This will serve her purposes by encouraging more dependents; aka voters.

18

HILLARY! is a SOCIALIST :eek:

19

Speaking as a libertarian, this is the way I see liberals.

Liberals believe that society has a responsibility toward the individual. This means that the individual is the most important thing in the person-society construct, and that in any conflict, the individual prevails.

Following this theory, liberals are for: Civil rights (because people’s rights are of ultimate importance), government responsibilities toward the people (welfare and other social programs) and a redistribution of wealth (which allows those individuals unable to provide all that is needed for themselves the opportunity to “play on a level field”). This last helps the poor at the expense of the rich, which is OK, because the needs of “people” (the poor) outweigh the desires of the rich to maintain “things” (money).

Liberal support for gun control seems to conflict with civil rights, but is in complete harmony if you look at it this way: The living Constitution (thing) needs to make way to the rights of crime victims (people) to live safe lives.

I completely agree that liberals do not hold the Constitution to be something written in stone, and as more of a “guidebook” to the way society should function.

20

Mashie: Hillary is willing to sacrafice [sic] some freedom for a government wealth redistibution program.

Mashie, can you name one politician (not a member of the Libertarian Party, that is) who does not support some taxation of the wealthier for benefits for the less wealthy, or what you call a “government redistribution program”? I don’t think you can. So where in your rather fuzzy characterization of social and fiscal policy do the lines between conservative/liberal/socialist fall? Can we see some numbers here? Is it determined, say, by the level of the proposed top-bracket tax rate? Is anyone who favors holding the top rate under 40% a conservative and anybody exceeding 70% a socialist?

Or are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s ideas on wealth distribution are militantly, absolutely egalitarian? Is she a “socialist” because she refuses to recognize any basis for possession of material goods other than demonstrable need of them, which is what (some) real socialists do? I don’t think she does, and I don’t think you’re suggesting she does. You’re talking about a complete spectrum of views on the sanctity of property versus wealth redistribution, and you’ve decided, pretty much arbitrarily, that Clinton falls in the section of the spectrum that’s redistributionist enough to be called “socialist”. I don’t think you have any consistent, quantitative, realistic definitions of your terms to back that decision up with. Go ahead, prove me wrong.