It seems to me that self-styled “conservatives” today are actually much more liberal than a true conservative would be. Liberals spend a lot of money, advocate for more government intervention, programs, etc. That seems to describe Bush, his religious fundamentalist supporters, etc.
What are your thoughts?
What an interesting definition of liberal.
I don’t really know where to start.
Maybe at the beginning, perhaps?
:rolleyes:
Okay, it’s a loaded question, probably full of distortions, etc.
If you have a point, can you try to make it, please? If I’m incorrect, try to make a case.
(I can’t believe I’m doing this - I thought this was a forum for debating, not for posturing…)
Well, even thoght I’m entirely sure what they are, because I’ve only stared hearing this word a few weeks ago, litterally, I think what you are describing is a neocon, if I understand the word correctly. They’re different from traditional conservatives in some of the ways you just pointed out.
But then again, I could be full of B.S. Hopefully someone more knowledgable will come along and let you know.
Depends on your definition of liberal. If you define liberal as favours government intervention then as Bush has increased government spending i guess you could say Bush is “liberal” when it comes to the economy. I know in the US that liberal has a different meaning to over here, but i don’t think many peoples definition of the word would just include “favours government intervention” would it? Correct me if i’m wrong, but it would include positions on a lot of other things like gun control, universal healthcare etc which are opposite to Bush. So it doesn’t seem he’s liberal by the normal US meaning of the word.
Political labels change their meaning with time and circumstances. In 19th-Century Europe, a “liberal” could mean (in Britain) something close to what we now would call a libertarian, or (on the Continent) somebody who stood for free speech and parliamentary government.
As the word “conservative” is used in America today, it could refer to:
Business-interest conservatives, who believe that what’s good for GM is good for the country, etc. (“Neoliberals” who support international trade on the terms set forth by NAFTA and WTO are, in my view, really a subset of business-interest conservatives. That means you, Bill.)
Neoconservative warhawks, commited to the idea that America should be a global hegemonic military superpower, in control of everything that matters, and, incidentally, should work to establish democracy in foreign countries where it has not existed previously. (We’ve had earlier GD threads comparing the neocons to the Trotskyite socialists, and in fact there there is a genuine intellectual lineage connecting them – which does not mean that modern neocons are Marxists in any sense.)
Libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives, committed to minimal government and maximal personal freedom and economic freedom. These are not the same as business-interest conservatives. The Libs are pro-market, not pro-business – they’re all for deregulation but they would never approve of federal bailouts to troubled corporations.
Fiscal conservatives, committed to balanced budgets and limited government spending.
Religious social conservatives, committed to school prayer, outlawing abortion, etc. (This group now includes both very religious Protestants and very religious Catholics, who have been hostile to each other for most of American history.)
Nativist-isolationist-populist conservatives, hostile to immigration, to America’s involvement in foreign wars, and to Wall Street. (Best represented, at the moment, by Pat Buchanan and his America First Party.)
Decentralist conservatives, committed to states’ rights and limited federal government. (To put this in perspective, the Greens are also decentralists – it’s one of their Ten Key Values.)
White-supremacist and militia conservatives, the less said the better.
You could probably think of others, but I think this list covers most of the field. Obviously these are not exclusive groupings, there is considerable overlap, and a given “conservative” might identify with several of these points of view – but no rational person could identify with all of them, because some are flatly incompatible with others.
Applying this to the OP: The Bush Administration, based on its actions to date, mainly represents the business-interest conservatives, the neocons, and the religious-social conservatives, in that order of priority. If Bush has cut taxes on the rich, increased military and civilian spending, and run up the biggest budget deficits since the Reagan years, that is simply because he is serving the first two of these interests. His tax cuts are good for the superrich who control the corporations; his runaway spending fattens a lot of corporate pockets; and he had to spend a lot of money to fight two wars in furtherance of the neocon agenda. None of this makes Bush a “liberal,” unless you define liberal as “anyone who supports massive government spending.”
BrainGlutton, excellent post!
I guess it isn’t quite as simple as I thought! 
If you could travel back several centuries, you would find a quite clear-cut difference between the meaning of conservative and liberal. Conservatives believed that attempts to change the overall social and political landscape of western civilization were leading in the wrong direction, and that the best course was to maintain the system whereby political power was inherited and there was no chance for those born ot the lower classes to rise to the ranks of the upper classes. To be a conservative was to believe that the progress being made was counterproductive, and that the future would likely be worse than the past.
In the modern United States, most people who classify themselves as conservative believe that the world will be better in the future, they just want to see progress at a slower rate than liberals do. Thus, most conservatives are actually liberal in the philosophical sense. In practice, what happens in the United States is that a group of ideas first gets considered by liberals, then enters the mainstream, and finally gets accepted by conservatives.
In my observation, this process typically takes several generations, but it certainly seems to be speeding up lately. Recently, Bush has approved a Medicare prescription drug benefit and instituted nationwide standardized testing, both ideas the liberal only started talking about ten years ago.
As a general rule, liberals favor government policies and actions, at whatever level, that maximize human growth, opportunity and security, not just for the wealthy but for the poor and the middle class, too.
Conservatives are generally against widespread human growth, opportunity and security for the various reasons BrainGlutton lists. For the most part, they favor maintaining legal and social advantages for varioius in-groups and maintaining legal and social disadvantages for various out-groups – gays, blacks, immigrants, etc.
Pay attention to this key difference and all the details fall right into line.
??? Why would anyone be “against widespread human growth, opportunity and security”? I think the real difference is that conservatives (mistakenly) do not believe that the liberal agenda will lead to widespread human growth, opportunity and security. That is, apart from a subminority of principled racists, fascists, and other kinds of elitists. But I cannot believe that American conservatism, however much I despise it for its stupidity and narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy, is essentially racist or elitist. Racism has ever-diminishing appeal even on the right, and liberals are just as guilty as conservatives when it comes to elitism.
Good point. I should have said, “Because conservatism tends to want to hang on to the status quo, favoring in-groups in favor of out-groups, they have a de facto tendency to oppose widespread human growth, opportunity and security.” Much clearer that way. I recognize that conservatives don’t oppose widespread growth, freedom and opportunity simply becaus they don’t like them intellectually, it’s just a natural byproduct of their basic tendencies.
BrainGlutton, that was a very good summary of the people with somewhat disparate interests who get lumped together as “conservatives.” I’d like to add that these groups all came together in the 1980 election, largely becuase Ronald Reagan helped pull them together to make a sort-of coalition government. Since then, those groups have enjoyed a greater share of political power, and so you now see the inevitable break-up. I myself would fall into your #3 and #4 categories (libertarians and fiscal conservatives), and I would tolerate those from the other groups because they helped elect people who were relatively favoring of my beliefs.
But now that we’ve siezed the castle, I am unhappy having to share with the religious types and the hawks.
EvilCaptor, it’s not a good description that American conservatives want to keep the status quo. We don’t. We consider the status quo to be way too far left-leaning, and want to change it to more “conservative” values.
I don’t think that the various flavors of conservatism are as divergent as BrainGlutton seems to imply. In domestic policy conservatives are organized around a common theme: small government. They differ in why they want it. Fiscal conservatives want a small government because the market is better at improving the economy than government is. Libertarians want a small government because it is less threatening to freedom. Religous conservatives want a small government because it is less threatening to their values. Decentralizers or Federalists want a smaller government because state governments are less threatening and more responsive.
I think that the Pat Buchanan types could be more accurately described as populists rather than conservatives. I also do not think what was described as pro-business conservatives are actually but rather non-ideological rent seekers.
In foreign policy the divide is between realists and optimists. The realists would say that the best we can do try to put out fires as they come up and if we have to deal with some bastards to do it, that is the way the world works. The optimists want to try to spread democracy so that the fires don’t start and making deals with bastards is counterproductive in the long term.
Conservatives are consistently against these things when done by a liberal, but not usually against them if done by one of their own.
Against Big Gubbermint (BG)? The Gubbermint is much more into our private lives with less restrictions now.
Business interests want BG to be around to save their asses.
Neocons want BG to impose upon our privacy rights and to be aggressive militaristicly in the name of security interests … which historically has sometimes meant having an opposing POV.
Religious/Moral/Patriotic conservatives are all for BG imposing their POV upon everyone else. States Rights be damned if gay marriage is involved. Freedom of speech is wonderful as long as you are saying what I don’t mind hearing.
These three are in the tent. The rest are tagging along.
Fiscal conservatives have been sold out. Big time.
States Rights folks only seem to care about the right to do what they want to do; no problem imposing upon what others want to do.
Liberterians have always been marginalized and have few choices.
Isolationist/Nativists are dealt out of the current conservative incarnation as Bush instead gets pulled by neocons, and throwing bones at immigrant populations critical in the next election cycle, and Big Business interests who want open trade and shots at cheap labor elsewhere.
But where will they go instead? I have a hard time imagining many of them voting Dem even though they are currently talking more a fiscally conservative, more states rights/local control, less agressive world policing, position than Repubs are. Like CurtC they’ll likely stay put even if unhappy with their castle roommates.
Considering that the American populace is already seen as fairly conservative relative to the rest of the world, and the only folks more right-leaning than American conservatives are Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East, isn’t that a clue that maybe it’s the conservatives who are out of step with the rest of society?
rjung,
Remember, CurtC is not a religious or foreign policy conservative. He’d like more of a balanced budget, and less government imposing religion or anything else upon the individual’s own freedoms. It isn’t fair to lump his views for “more conservative” in with those others for whom a balanced budget doesn’t really seem to matter and imposition of morality and more is a policy goal. But can he find a home with the Dems?
I dunno, I don’t think CurtC was talking about economic conservatism in his earlier message. In terms of social liberalism/conservatism, though, the United States is definitely skewed to the right relative to the rest of the world – and in that light, it seems to me that calling the status quo in the United States as “way too far left-leaning” is taking a myopic view of the matter.
Sure, but he can’t share my bed. 
CurtC:
Well, in one sense you can say that conservatives are clinging to the status quo as of the 1950’s in the face of 40 years* of wild-eyed experimentation.
In a completely different sense, you might say that adherants to the current left-leaning status quo* are being “conservative” while those who reject that orthodoxy and want to experiment with smaller government are being “liberal” (hence “libertarian”). And in Russia, the Communists were left-wing conservatives while Boris Yeltsin was a right-wing liberal.
*(How much further have we leaned to the left since Reagan took office?)
Speaking as a brit, we tend to see the Democrats and Republicans as right-wing and more right-wing.
Actually, this is a pretty good description of the Bush family.