What is the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative?

Great Debates
41

Remembering the story of a young woman, soon to graduate college, who was engaged in debate with her Father, a wealthy business owner. The lady couldn’t understand why her conservative Dad was against handouts to those who had less than he.

He asked her how she was doing in school, and she replied that to maintain her 4.0 average, she had given up campus parties, had stayed up late studying, and essentially had no social life, but was proud of her grades, and felt the sacrifice worth the end result.

Then her Dad asked how her friend Mary was doing, and was told that Mary doesn’t apply herself, is a party animal, often missing early classes, and will be lucky if she gets a 2.0 overall GPA.

Father then suggested that they pay a visit to the Dean, and she contribute one full point of her grade to Mary, so they could both graduate with a 3.0, a suggestion to which the daughter was outraged, asking why she should give up something she had worked hard for, something she had earned.

At that point, Dad leaned over, kissed her on the forehead, and said, “Perhaps now you have an understanding of why I’m conservative.”

Simplistic? Yes. The basic point is still valid, at least for this conservative.

42

danceswithcats, can we please keep the glurge out of these boards? It’s bad enough in my email.

43

At which the girl rolled her eyes. “Dad,” she said, “didja forget that the only reason I got into this school is because you’re an alum?”

Daniel

44

Moderator’s Note: You’re kind of in the wrong forum then. The BBQ Pit is our forum for calling each other poopie-heads. The forum you want is Great Debates; I’ll move it there for you.

45

It seems to me that your pairs of opposites contradict each other. Liberals are egalitarian individualists? Conservatives are freedom-loving communitarians? Hmm.

46

When I use a liberal and conservative they mean just what I choose them to mean–neither more nor less.

47

Funny - you’re the second person to disagree with my definition, yet nobody has posted a better definition. All we’ve had are either “you’re wrong”, snide comments, insults, or anecdotal quips along the lines of “A conservative might do x, while a liberal might do y.” None of those things are definitions.

“Resistant to change” is in fact the very dictionary definition of the word “conservative”. If you disagree with the definition, tell us why you disagree. As I did with Muad’Dib, I challenge you to come up with some concrete examples of where you believe that conservatives advocate change. Then, we might be able to discuss why you think that particular thing constitutes a conservative view. But simply saying “It’s not just about change” really adds nothing concrete to the discussion.

48

Here’s one example: Conservatives advocated regime change in Iraq, liberals did not. In fact, liberals actively tried to maintain the status quo since the end of Gulf War I: continuing to pass U.N. resolutions (IIRC, we were up to 17!), calling for more Weapons Inspections, saying we had to play nice with the French, Germans, and Russians, etc. George W. Bush, to his credit, said “screw that” and the regime has been changed. Granted, a very unpopular example, and one that is not going particularly well, but there you have it.

49

The problem with a hard definition of liberal or conservative is that he notion resides in the head of each of us. It’s like defining beauty. Each of us knows it when we see it, but even then my image of beauty may not match up at all with yours.

I’m not saying you can’t define the terms liberal, conservative or beauty, but the definitions need to allow for a lot of interpretation. That’s why I fall back on Szasz’s paternalistic/maternalistic distinction for the conservative/liberal ideas. The terms defining the terms are as vague as the terms the terms are defining. Did’ja follow that last part?

50

Liberals say they want to help people, but rarely do anything to help them themselves. Instead they throw the idea out there, pat themselves on the back for being so humanitarian, and expect that the government, and a few people whose time is less valuable than theirs, will gather the money and do the actual work that will help give the struggling underclass everything they’ll need to rise above their current situation.

Conservatives say that people ought to help themselves, but they rarely do anything to showa hungry man how to fish for himself, figuratively speaking. Instead they throw the idea out there, pat themselves on the back for being so pragmatic, and expect that teachers and other people whose time is less valuable than theirs will make the effort to teach all the kids growing up in the struggling underclass everything they’ll need to know to rise above their current situation.

51

Jesus was a liberal.

'nuff said. :wink:

52

Oh, you must believe that there can actually be such a thing as a “big-government conservative.”

53

In terms of national security, the bigger the government (i.e. military), the better, so yes.

54

The fundamental difference between those on the left and those on the right is in our view of human nature. Liberals and other leftists believe people are basically caring and capable while conservatives and other rightists believe people in general are selfish and stupid. This worldview interacts with experience and interests to provide a rainbow of philosophies but they can all be classified as either leftist or rightist. Given the differences though there is no guarantee that classification will be particularly helpful in a given situation. For instance, either worldview can be used to justify “big government”. Some conservatives, like the Puritans before them, believe we need a powerful government to regulate behavior to keep us sinners from straying from the path of righteousness.

And before I get jumped on by conservatives like I always do when I point out this basic difference in outlook, I am not saying that liberals believe people are saints. Our belief is relative. We don’t trust people absolutely; we just trust them more than the conservatives do.

55

Hmmm…would you really call that a “change”? A change for Iraq, yes, but we’re talking about American politics, not Iraqi politics. Let’s look at the history of the United States - haven’t we always been expansionist and/or sought to increase our influence throughout the world? We started out with 13 colonies and now have 50 states plus however many territories we have. And we specifically have a history of extending influence in the Middle East. We’ve already been at war with Iraq once, and have been militarily involved in the region before that war and since, up until the current war.

So if you really analyze it, the Iraq invasion is not a change for the U.S.; we’ve been doing that kind of thing for a long time. The conservative approach would be to keep doing what we’ve been doing, foreign policy-wise. Now, on the other hand, if the U.S. were to suddenly adopt a pacifist philosophy, that would be a change.

I think you’re gonna find that my definition really does work in pretty much every case you can think of. You might be able to think of some “conservative” actions that seem to advocate change, but only if you’re looking at it at a very superficial level. If you look at the big picture, it’s still going to hold that a conservative is, by definition, a person who desires things to stay the way they have been in the past.

56

I’m not conservative, but I’m gonna jump on you anyway. :wink: I don’t agree with your assessment. Part of the liberal philosophy is that it is a natural function of government to intervene when people are wronged. For example, civil rights laws are certainly borne of a liberal philosophy. So if you’re going to make any kind of sweeping generalization, I think you’d have to say that liberals don’t trust people to always do the right thing.

57

Oh, I would disagree quite strongly with this. It appears to me that liberals think people are basically helpless, gullible and weak, and they need a nanny state to protect and provide for them. Conservatives tend to believe in human strength, intelligence and resourcefulness, and believe the government should defend the country militarily and enforce the law, and pretty much stay the hell out of everything else. Private enterprise can accomplish almost anything more quickly, efficiently, cheaply, and with better quality than the government…which is primarily concerned with its own growth. It is also much more responsive to its customers – and therefore people get much better results – than faceless government bureaucracies and the bureaucrats they employ.

58

There is no real difference. Its like asking people to define the difference between two sides of a coin; theyre both still the same thing.

The hard core of both parties both want the same things, they just arrive there by two different paths. They all want to determine who we can buy from or sell to, what we can buy, earn, what we can eat, drink, smoke, have sex with, and where we can do all these things and more.

Conservatives have their artificial creation we are all supposed to bow to called God, Liberals have their artificial creation we are all supposed to bow to called Society (in the sense of Society being something other than/greater than a collection of individuals). Conservatives will quote clergy, Liberals will quote philosophers. Conservatives will scoff at evolution while mouthing it in the context of free trade. Liberals will scoff at conservatives for rejecting evolution while launching into a bunch of hot air as to why science cant really ‘prove’ anything when questions about things like, oh, genetics come up.

Conservatives adhere to organized religon, Liberals adhere to secular religon. They both are chock full of pompus, self righteous assholes so deluded by their own egos that they think they know best how other people should live and what other people should value. Its like asking the difference between the taste of oranges from Cal as opposed to the taste of oranges from Flo. No matter the subtleties of taste, theyre still all fucking oranges.

To add to the cutsie little alegories, Liberals are cross dressers who only cross dress when other people are around. Conservatives are cross dressers who only cross dress when no one is around.

Or, conservatives will bend you over and fuck you. If you resist, the cops will hold you down. Liberals will try to talk you into bending over willingly. If that doesnt work, theyll shout to everyone else how unfair it is that your ass is still tight, and how anti-social it is of you to reject what others were willing to submit to. So your neighbors will hold you down.

Or, at an accident on the side of the road, conservatives will stop, get out and help, drive the person to a hospital, then send them a bill. Liberals will stop, start yelling that someone should call 911, and stand there with their thumb up their ass until the ambulance comes. If the person dies, its of course the fault of the ambulance for not getting there in time.

59

Strangely, I kind of agree with this statement.

Not so strangely, I think this is a load of horse dooky. DOMA, anyone?

You are Paul Bremer, and I claim my £5. But as the issue of unfettered capitalism 1) has been debated here endlessly already, and 2) is off-topic, I’ll leave it.

My view is that both groups think people are “basically helpless, gullible and weak”; it’s just that the liberals want to nanny them and the conservatives want to exploit them. Except when it’s the other way around.

60

I love this quote, just because I believe I am a counter-example. At 25, I was straight-up fiscal conservative, to the point of arguing against any kind of welfare, health care, or government interferences in the free-market. Thankfully, on the way to age 34 (I suppose I have a year to go), I’ve grown a heart.

I’ll leave it to conservatives (as defined by the above quote) to make snide comments about my brain.

BTW - does anyone have an attribution for the quote?