What is the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative?

[PatriotX]

@milroyj

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

I was discussing the Bush Admin very large increase in discretionary spending- not the increase in military spending.

Bush has tolerated a surge in federal spending, downplayed swollen deficits, failed to use his veto, and fashioned an alliance of sorts with Teddy Kennedy on education and Medicare.

[Digital_Stimulus]

I suppose this is a hijack, and I apologize in advance.

@Starving Artist

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.

I find this to be a common objection to government operation that, even taken to the hedged extreme of “almost anything”, is often wrong. Mostly, I think it can be traced to the inclusion of “better quality” in the list. “Better quality”, as used in these discussions, is often gratuitously included or equivalent to one of the other items. To be more explicit with an example, government programs are associated with lots of “red tape”. However, there’s an underlying reason - traceability, accountability, and openness. Think Enron, Silkwood, various Wall Street scandals, or any other corporate misdeeds for the negative. Think FOIA requests for the positive.

A disclaimer - I’m most assuredly not saying that bloated beauracracy is good, nor am I saying that beauracy solves the items above, nor am I saying that government programs are always (or even in most cases) better than private enterprise. Just that many people seem to proclaim “free market is good, government involvement is bad” as truth without acknowledging that private enterprise isn’t a silver bullet. The “best” would be somewhere in the middle, IMHO, leaning towards private enterprise in many cases. (I also point out that I’m not necessarily including Starving Artist in this group, as I have no idea how adamant (s)he is in this regard.)

[tnetennba]

@Starving Artist

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.

What we’ve learned from Starving Artist is that conservatives tend to speak in broad, self-serving and poorly supported generalizations.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@elfkin477

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.

Betcha a cookie, though, that if you go around to all the 501(c)(3) organizations out there, you’ll find an overwhelming Democratic majority amongst them. The people who ARE helping others tend to support the policies that they see benefitting the underclass, and those policies tend to be Democratic policies.

Throw in teachers to the poll, and I’ll be you a whole cheesecake.

Daniel

[BrainGlutton]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum:

In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with Conservatism, theocracy, and Fascism (“the right”) on one end, and Socialism and Communism (“the left”) on the other. In North America and Europe, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of political viewpoints, often seen as divergent between the United States and the rest of the world. The term left and right was also used to describe politics in China starting in the 1920s until the 1980s, although the issues often were very different from the ones in Western nations.

Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis

There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis:

Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or hierarchy (right).

Whether the state should prioritize liberty (left) or security (right).

Whether the government’s involvement with moral issues should be minimal or interventionist. In different historical contexts, either of these positions has been called “left” or “right”.

Whether the government’s involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). Note that certain right-wing governments have engaged in interventionist policies (see dirigisme).

Whether the government should take care of issues such as health care and retirement benefits (left), or whether individuals should be left to their own devices on such issues (right).

Whether their opinion on human nature is broadly optimistic (left) or pessimistic (right).

Support for the economic interests of the poor (left) or the rich (right).

Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right). This was proposed by Australian Labor Party leader Mark Latham.

Whether one embraces change (left) or prefers rigorous justification for change (right). This was proposed by Eric Hoffer.

Whether human nature and society is malleable (left) or fixed (right). This was proposed by Thomas Sowell.

<snip>

Alternative spectra

Some people feel that it is not obvious how these various concepts are related. They say that it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are referring to. They believe that one should first establish context by defining the axes upon which different positions will be measured.

Nonetheless, the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted. Many people even have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it. However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum.

Perhaps the simplest alternative to the left-right spectrum was devised as a rhetorical tool during the Cold War. This was a circle which brought together the far right and left ends of the traditional spectrum, equating “extreme socialism” (i.e. the Communist Party) with “extreme conservatism” (i.e. Fascism). This nexus was particularly useful to those opposed to rapprochement with the Soviet Union.

Another alternative spectrum offered at American Federalist Journal emphasizes the degree of political control, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme. However, the way the American Federalist Journal uses such a measure to show Democrats and Libertarians both close to the two opposite political extremes is arguably ridiculous, with their rather more moderate stances unrealistically exaggerated. Such an error owes more to an apparent ignorance of the policies of those US parties and their distance in relation to the opposite levels of state power. Furthermore, there is the issue of the Journal’s own (conservative) political agenda to take into account.

Yet another alternative, currently popular among certain environmentalists, uses a single axis to measure what they consider to be the good of the Earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the earth.

In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies, offered a new single axis spectrum that measures one’s view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, whom Postrel calls stasists. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control, for whom she uses the name dynamists.

Other axes that might merit consideration include:

Role of the church: Clericalism vs. Anti-clericalism. This axis is not significant in the United States where views of the role of religion tend to get subsumed into the general left-right axis, but in Europe clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left-right spectrum.

Urban vs. rural: This axis is also much more significant in European politics than American.

Foreign policy: interventionism (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. isolationism (the nation should keep to its own affairs)

Market policy: socialism (government should democratize or control economic productivity) vs. laissez-faire (government should leave the market alone) vs. corporatism (government should subsidize or support existing successful businesses)

Political violence: pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). Informally, these people are often referred to as “doves” and “hawks”, respectively.

Foreign trade: globalization (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. autarky (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence)

Diversity: multiculturalism (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. assimilationism or nationalism (the nation should represent the dominant ethnic group)

Participation: Positive Liberty (positive participation in the government) vs. Oligarchy (rule by a limited number of people)

[2sense]

@blowero

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.

Did you miss the part where I said that leftists don’t believe people to be saints?

@Starving Artist

Oh, I would disagree quite strongly with this.

I’m not surprised. This is the reaction I usually get from people who don’t wish to see their philosophy in a less than positive light. Nontheless, it is true. Back when we had civilized political discourse in this country the common conservative critique was that we were goodhearted but softheaded. That is, we were idealistic dreamers who just didn’t understand human nature. Nowadays we are just evilminded elitist America-haters.

I do want to make a small correction. I feel this is the fundamental difference between left and right but I don’t know that to be true so I shouldn’t pull such an assertion out of my fundament. It certainly is a fundamental difference.

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.

Consumerism isn’t democracy but I’ll leave the argument over the benefits of laissez-faire economics to others. For our purposes here what is important is not who is right but rather why the sides take the position they do. Liberals believe people are capable. If we organize our labor for the sole purpose of making money we trust people will do a good job of ruthlessly making money. We also understand that there are consequences of this system of organization. This understanding is based not on ideology but on experience. We can see it happening and, believing people are basically caring, believe people want their government to do something about this. And we believe that people are capable of establishing a government to deal with these effects.

Though I should note that distrust of government is a strong thread in American society and is hardly limited to conservatives. Once again allow me to point out the liberal belief in people is relative. Other leftist ideologies don’t necessarily share this bias against government. Nor do all right wing ideologies, for that matter.

So, how does your counterclaim explain conservative indifference to the negative social consequences of capitalism? Is it really your position that everyone is strong, intelligent, and resourceful enough to deal with these effects on their own? Because if so I would be happy to pass the “idealistic dreamer” label over to you. There are countless counterexamples.

[blowero]

@2sense

Did you miss the part where I said that leftists don’t believe people to be saints?

Did you miss the part where you said, “we [liberals] just trust [people] more than the conservatives do”?

[2sense]

@blowero

Did you miss the part where you said, “we [liberals] just trust [people] more than the conservatives do”?

Of course not. What I am missing is what this has to do with your earlier comment. You made no comparison before.

What is your point?

[Starving_Artist]

If you people would do a better job of reading my mind, you’d have a better idea of what I was driving at.

Admittedly, I didn’t explain myself very clearly in my post above. I sort of conflated things and left the last part of one point hanging while posting the last part of another point which I hadn’t yet made.

I apologize. I dashed that off rather hurriedly and it made perfect sense to me at the time.

I’ve had a long day today helping a friend move and I still have errands to run so I won’t attempt to explain myself now. Perhaps I can return tomorrow to explain my point more clearly. Surely you will all agree with me once I do.

[OliverTwistofLime]

Liberal and Conservative are words that are meaningless.

I fit in the category of a conservative because I do not believe in so many entitlements. Those who are willing to become educated and better themselves deserve more.

Yet I am anti-Bush in his environmental views, his allowing government to push religion down our throats…i.e. the abortion issue and many others.

I would be a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Conservatives believe that only they can save society.

Liberals believe… well, pretty much the same.

[blowero]

@2sense

Of course not. What I am missing is what this has to do with your earlier comment. You made no comparison before.

What is your point?

My. point. is. that. the. statement. “Liberals trust people more than conservatives do.” is. not. true.

Would you like me to come to your house and yell it through a megaphone? :rolleyes:

[2sense]

@MadSam

Liberal and Conservative are words that are meaningless.

I fit in the category of a conservative because I do not believe in so many entitlements. Those who are willing to become educated and better themselves deserve more.

Yet I am anti-Bush in his environmental views, his allowing government to push religion down our throats…i.e. the abortion issue and many others.

You aren’t either a fascist or a communist either. Does that make those terms meaningless? Of course not. Just because they don’t apply to you personally doesn’t mean the categories aren’t useful. It just means they don’t fit you.

But do they really not fit you? Just because you don’t agree with Bush on everything doesn’t mean you aren’t conservative. There are many beliefs that can be justified by a conservative philosophy. You can be conservative and still want to conserve the environment or support abortion rights or support the seperation of church and state. And there is nothing unliberal about believing the value of hard work. We liberals believe in a meritocracy, after all. If you work harder or smarter you should get ahead. Of course, it just might be that you don’t fit into either category. It’s hard to say without knowing you.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that people in general are good and trustworthy or not? If you answer “no” then you aren’t liberal.

@blowero

My. point. is. that. the. statement. “Liberals trust people more than conservatives do.” is. not. true.

Don’t patronize me. If that’s what you wanted to say then you should have said so in the first place. Instead you pointed out that liberals don’t seem to trust people absolutely in response to a quote of mine that expressed the very same sentiment. If you had made your assertion coherently the first time or politely this time I would have given you an answer. Since you didn’t I have no interest in discussing it with you.

Good day.

[GomiBoy]

Reading this thread has crystalized two points for me:

Liberals strive to protect the minority from the majority although they often fail and often overreach; Conservatives are evangelical in their attitudes towards what’s best and right and proper and try to legislate that belief.

Liberals believe that free markets shouldn’t be totally free and should be subject to government regulation and oversight; Conservatives believe that free markets are the panacea for all that ails society, and should be left free to do whatever they want.

I did have a lot more written up, but lost it and can’t be arsed to type it up again.

So that’s my two to throw in the pot.

[BrotherCadfael]

"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. "

– Robert Heinlein

[KidCharlemagne]

@Roseworm

What is the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative?

I offer two short examples:
A Liberal believes in equality.

A Conservative believes in freedom.

What about the ACLU?

[RickJay]

I have never seen a more depressing thread. Do you people actually believe this crap?

[KidCharlemagne]

Liberals are idealistic and tend to lack common sense while conservatives are significantly more utilitarian. Liberals see themselves as victims who blame others for their misfortune and take no responsibilty for their own failures. Conservatives tend to believe that they are responsible for their success. Liberals tend to project their own sense of victimhood unto others rather than themselves so as to appear to be compassionate rather than really bitching about their own situation. They complain about others’ solution but never come up with any of their own. They are ignorant of economics. They would rather a conservative’s solution to a problem “seem” benevolent rather than “be” benevolent. They believe the world can be perfect. They dislike authority. They are probably twice as likely to have been bullied in high school than conservatives. Their views more likely derive from stunted emotional development which leads even smart liberals to abandon logic when emotion enters the argument. They assume the government is out to get them and everything is run by a conspiratorial corporate cabal. They focus soley on the potential problems of policy rather than the potential benefits. Conservatives live in the real world while liberals cry that the real world isn’t perfect because of conservatives. Conservative are better at laying odds on gambling propostions and not only because they have the money with which to gamble. Liberals would be appalled at my painting of such broad strokes but wouldn’t take a bet that a demographic/psychographic survey would confirm them.

No, you haven’t been whoosed.

FTR: I have a liberal stance on 9/10 issues. I typically don’t make arguments for conservatives, but liberals never offerf a reasonable argument.

[GomiBoy]

@RickJay

I have never seen a more depressing thread. Do you people actually believe this crap?

Why so negative? It’s just asking for definitions for terms. I don’t think most of us are comfortable being categorized like that, and I know for a fact I am not.

[2sense]

@RickJay

I have never seen a more depressing thread. Do you people actually believe this crap?

Yes, for my part.

@KidCharlemagne

No, you haven’t been whoosed.

Have you? I mean, have you missed out on what constitutes a political philosophy? What you offer are stereotypes, not principles. But I don’t know why I’m picking on you when so many others before you have been just as bad or worse. So, do you or any of the other ranters care to try to back up your claims? This isn’t the IMHO forum, after all.