Liberals tend to be realists. They are more cynical about institutions than they are about individuals. They place a lot of emphasis on fairness, equality and–perhaps paradoxically–individuality. When they talk about freedom, they mean freedom to do whatever they want as long as it’s not hurting anyone (which means laws should only proscribe behavior that result in foreseeable harm).
Conservatives tend to be idealistic. They are more cynical about individuals than they are about institutions. They value morality above everything–respecting authority as a means of upholding morality and esteeming conformity as a way of perpetuating it. Whey they talk about freedom, they mean freedom to do whatever they want as long as it’s not immoral (which means laws must be written to reflect morality–however you want to define that).
The above applies to social liberals and conservatives. I am sure social conservatives who are fiscally liberal exist, but I have never met any. The only fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal I’ve ever met have been on the SD.
I like Andy Rooney’s definition, although he made it more party-centric:
“Democrats believe people are basically good but must be saved from themselves by the government. Republicans believe people are basically bad but they’ll be okay if they’re left alone.”
The fiscal-social distinction is important, but there are other reasons why two people can have differing opinions on an issue and both claim to be conservative.
One way to describe the dichotomy is: conservatives believe the individual is more important than the group; liberals believe the opposite. By this standard, preference for keeping taxes low is conservative. But so is opposition to a military draft, and the freedom to take drugs. That’s not how it lined up during Vietnam.
Another way: conservatives believe society is like a lifeform; liberals believe it’s like a mechanism: it’s safer to change a mechanism without worrying about unforeseen consequences. This explains conservative hesitancy to adopt things that may seem like improvements. E.g., some conservatives warned that the birth control pill would lead to promiscuity. They also tend to oppose government-coerced indoctrination (aka ‘social engineering’). However, there are definitely some forms of this - like mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance - that are almost exclusively supported by conservatives.
Nonsense. Well-regulated economies with a strong government sector are more prosperous and better at wealth creation. Unregulated economies with weak governments are better only at enriching a narrow class of rent-takers and their hangers-on.
This is why GDP growth always tanks under Republican presidents.
For purposes of modern American politics:
A liberal likes the sorts of policies of Roosevelt (either one really) and dislikes the policies of Reagan. And dislike the character of Nixon.
A conservative likes the policies of Reagan and dislikes the policies of Roosevelt. And dislike the character of Clinton.
My personal opinion will not be popular here, in the land of the liberal pinheads. But WTF, you asked, so here it goes:
IMHO, Liberals think people are stupid. They think that the government needs to provide a safety net, because a significant number of people just can’t survive on their own wits.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in the power of the individual. They believe that if the government would just BUTT OUT, and leave people alone to prosper on their own merits, the vast majority of citizens would rise to the occasion and be far better off.
I consider myself a liberal, but not by any conservative’s definition.
I have to say, however, that I do believe most people are stupid, willfully and neglectfully so. I believe the government needs to provide a safety net because a significant number of people, conservative and liberal alike, simply cannot survive by their own wits. I also believe in the power of the individual, and that if the government would simply butt out of people’s daily lives the vast majority of citizens would be better off.
The OP did ask for opinions of what a conservative and a liberal are, and this is obviously yours.
However, whenever I read a sentiment like yours, my response is that it’s nothing more than a conservative’s caricature. I know and have known many conservatives who don’t take responsibility for their actions. I read about them, hear about them on radio, and see them on the TV news. In fact, I’d say the most vociferous and well-known conservatives tend to blame others for their actions more often than not.
Some liberals, in equal measure with conservatives, tend to look to government to fix their problems, but that’s not the vast majority of liberals. Liberals do, in large measure, look to the government to ensure equal access to opportunities and protections for the disenfranchised, but that’s not the same as not accepting responsibility for one’s actions.
Real people have a variety of opinions and don’t usually fall into one camp 100%. But in the context of US politics, I think there is a pretty clear understanding of what each term signifies. Stereotypical? Yes, but useful in broad strokes.
Conservative: fiscally minded (Low taxes, small government in regards to regulations, business focused). Also morally traditional (anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, religious, pro-gun). Often pro-war. Often puts needs of business/people over the environment (drilling, logging, etc). The anti-evolution guy? Probably conservative. Ditto for the billionare banker. For some reason, this category includes both despite them being opposites.
Liberal: Socially minded (supports government programs for people, especially those considered disadvantaged, ie welfare, affirmative action). Supports progressive social positions (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-gun control). Usually environmentally focused. Often against war. That hippie protester with a huge sign for saving the whales? Liberal.
I’m liberal and think this should not be a dirty word. Conservatives are happy to fight over being more conservative than their opponent. We should own our term, too!
Theoretically, if liberalism is pushing for ‘dramatic’ social and political change and conservatism is upholding tradition. If a dramatic change becomes tradition then a liberal policy becomes a conservative policy. It is my understanding that the conservatives in the USSR were some of the biggest supporters of the regime back in the 1990 period when it was about to fail. So communism was once a far left ideology when it was new, after it became entrenched the conservatives supported it.
However in the US social change doesn’t really ever seem to be entrenched. Slavery was ended 150 years ago and womens suffrage was 90 years ago, but conservatism is still hostile to womens and minority rights. Those never became ‘entrenched’ and therefore conservative.
However (if it matters) political parties have changed. The republicans under Lincoln were the radical change party and the democrats were the party of the status quo. That all shifted in the 1960s with the civil rights movement.
Also because the overton window has moved to the right in the US, some conservative policies are now considered center left policies. Eisenhowers infrastructure program and hostility to the military-industrial complex, Nixons EPA and universal health care, etc. are all closer to something Obama would support.
That may sound good, but like I said earlier, 90% of that is rhetoric. The tea party is just as dependent on gov. spending as the rest of us. There are very few people who can afford education for their kids w/o public schools or retirement w/o medicare and social security. most people can’t afford private security so they need a public military, prisons and police.
Public schools, medicare and SS make up about 2 trillion of all gov. spending (federal, state, county, city). Add in domestic and international defense (military, police, firefighters, prisons) and that adds another trillion or so.
What are you going to cut? Many conservatives only support cutting programs that benefit ‘other people’. That never strikes me as individualism and self reliance, because they don’t want the programs they themselves are dependent on cut.
I think it’s fair to say that most abolitionists were liberal and most pro-slavery people were conservative. Most people fighting for civil rights were liberal. Most people complaining about the uppity negroes making trouble were conservative.
But then when you read about the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, it’s harder to figure out who’s who. Progressives wanted the government to fix the social ills resulting from rampant capitalism. That sounds pretty liberal. But they used morality as the billy club, which is conservative. If the government banned alcohol, which is probably responsible for more out-of-wedlock babies and immoral behavior than anything else in the world–then you’d have conservatives complaining about government interference of commerce and nannystate-ism, and you’d have liberals complaining about the undue influence of religiousity and “family values” on our laws. So was Prohibition “liberal” or “conservative”? It’s a mystery.
In my experience, liberals place a higher priority on helping the unlucky, or those on the most un-level part of the playing field, even if it means that a bunch of lazy or undeserving people are also given help.
Conservatives place a higher priority on preventing the lazy and undeserving from taking resources from the hard-working and competent, even if it means that a bunch of deserving but unlucky/started-in-a-hole people are denied reasonable assistance.
