Seeing as it came up in another thread-- what's your views on these labels? Not a discussion on the actual merits of what each "group"'s views are, but what exactly each label means. Even though we probably won't agree, it'll help get an idea of where people are coming from when they use these kinds of terms.
For myself... each pair indicates a spectrum, and everything is separate but no exclusive. Let's start with the former pair.
Right wing indicates one leans towards free-market solutions to economic problems, while left-wing prefers government intervention as a solution to economic problems.
-- Right wingers typically advocate deregulation, little to no government oversight, fewer if any government bailouts, etc-- and on the extreme end, a complete and utter separation of public and private sectors, essentially economic anarchism.
-- Left wingers typically advocate heavier regulation, more overnment oversight, government bailouts of companies, etc-- and on the extreme end, abolishment of the private sector entirely so that everything is government-run, essentially communism.
And then the latter pair:
Liberal indicates one supports expanding civil liberties, while conservative indicates the opposite, wishing to restrict civil liberties.
-- Liberals typically advocate abortion rights, removal of the death penalty, allowing homosexual marriage, separation of church and state, rehabilitation as opposed to punishment, etc. On the extreme end, liberals tend towards anarchism or similar ideas.
-- Conservatives typically advocate "pro-life" stances, death penalties, banning homosexual marriage, harsher illegal imigration laws, punishment as opposed to rehabilitation, etc. On the extreme end, conservatives tend towards autocracy or similar ideas.
Liberal indicates one supports expanding civil liberties, while conservative indicates the opposite, wishing to restrict civil liberties.
-- Liberals typically advocate abortion rights, removal of the death penalty, allowing homosexual marriage, separation of church and state, rehabilitation as opposed to punishment, etc. On the extreme end, liberals tend towards anarchism or similar ideas.
-- Conservatives typically advocate "pro-life" stances, death penalties, banning homosexual marriage, harsher illegal imigration laws, punishment as opposed to rehabilitation, etc. On the extreme end, conservatives tend towards autocracy or similar ideas.
I like this thread. And I agree with the previous comparisons. I have an issue with these though.
Your definition of liberal sounds more like the traditional liberal, not the current liberal hiding under the "progressive" umbrella.
Your definitions for right-wingers contradict themselves. How can one be at worst both for anarchy AND restrictive civil liberties?
As for what Liberals advocate - how can one person be for both the right to kill an unborn baby, but against the death penalty for the worst element of society? And at worst, Liberals tend towards more government - which means autocracy. (An example I heard recently - a man rapes a woman, impregnating her. Liberals want her to be able to abort the baby, but the rapist can't be executed for his heinous crime.) Liberals push for separation of church and state to do away with religion. (that phrase comes from a personal letter from T. Jefferson, not the constitution.)
Conservatives advocate for life, personal responsibility, free markets, accountability, religion, and at an extreme anarchism.
Well like you said each group covers a much wider range. Niether pair is restricted to the US, especially since both started across the pond. But here goes
Right wing- the right wing covers such a wide range of ideas that you have to separate them. However there are overarching themes like a defined social order and a "traditional" view on many issues. What was good enough for granddad... Sort of stuff.
There is the center right which generally espouses A limited degree of social programs especially including education spending, private property, limited regulation over a free market economy, liberal democracies (especially in the case of replacing monarchist remnants in commonwealth countries), a limited but substantial public sector and a large private sector.
The far right, what I would call the them the radical right generally call for the complete elimination of social programs, minimal government, private property, and a laissez faire economy, monarchists can often fit into this group advocating a return to monarchal power in government, nationalists, Religious fundamentalists, and strict social boundaries. This includes religious right, pro lifers, racists, etc.
The left can similarly be split although generally all of the left can agree on government by the people, social equality, and open society.
The center left are supporters of social programs to address social issues like housing, food, and income, a mixed economy with government regulation and occasional intervention. The reallocation of market resources in an economy with a large public sector and a strong public sector.
The far left espouse the relocation of wealth and property, a solely public economy, And the forced correction of social equality. This includes nationalists, socialists, and similar extreme social equality measures.
For Conservatives and Liberals I'll let Wikipedia do the talking.
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation.
It's important to remember that there is a large degree of overlap between the four. Some center leftists can be considered conservative, some center right (or classical liberals) can be liberal. Not everyone on the right is conservative, not all liberals are on the left. Not all leftists are liberal (in that communism is technically on the left and has sifted out to be not so socially equal)
Are we talking about conservatives in America of actual philosophical conservatism?
American conservatives espouse limited government only in the economic areas. Socially they're very controlling and not anarchists by any means. One can be autocratic in one respect and anarchist in the other. Humans suck at consistency
(that phrase comes from a personal letter from T. Jefferson, and is implied in the constitution.)
Come on now. Arguing that separation of S&C isn't in the Constitution is just fool hardy silliness.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The words don't have to be there achieve the goal. Honestly, I wonder why tax breaks for churches are constitutionally viable as a law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' Maybe the Supreme Court decided it was okay? Not that I'm complaining. Most churches kind of need the exception.
Republican - Rich old white dudes protecting the rich and starting unnecessary wars, claiming to want smaller government yet historically increasing government's reach and power.
Democrat - Socialist tree-huggers who want to spend money on unnecessary social programs, claiming to want smaller government yet historically increasing government's reach and power.
Conservative - Fundamentalist Christians pushing their ideals but pretending they're for the objective good, claiming the other side has a radical agenda.
Liberal - Hippies with no sense of direction other than what they want that second with no sense for hard work and tradition, claiming the other side has a radical agenda.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Republican - Rich old white dudes protecting the rich and starting unnecessary wars, claiming to want smaller government yet historically increasing government's reach and power.
Democrat - Socialist tree-huggers who want to spend money on unnecessary social programs, claiming to want smaller government yet historically increasing government's reach and power.
Conservative - Fundamentalist Christians pushing their ideals but pretending they're for the objective good, claiming the other side has a radical agenda.
Liberal - Hippies with no sense of direction other than what they want that second with no sense for hard work and tradition, claiming the other side has a radical agenda.
Am I doing it right?
No, you're supposed to pick one side and defend it regardless of anything, especially sourced facts. You also need to throw in some strawmans and ad hominems.
AustonT wrote:It's also worth mentioning that this country was founded by Liberals.
Generally, most US politicians are still in many respects classical liberals. True conservatism is kind of a backwater these days in US politics. American conservatives are kind of an infusion of traditional conservatism into the classical liberalism of our politics as I see it. Philosophically speaking they're still quite 'liberal.'
Not that they'd admit it. That would ruin the rhetoric of how opposite the two parties are
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Republican - Rich old white dudes protecting the rich and starting unnecessary wars, claiming to want smaller government yet historically increasing government's reach and power.
Democrat - Socialist tree-huggers who want to spend money on unnecessary social programs, claiming to want smaller government yet historically increasing government's reach and power.
Conservative - Fundamentalist Christians pushing their ideals but pretending they're for the objective good, claiming the other side has a radical agenda.
Liberal - Hippies with no sense of direction other than what they want that second with no sense for hard work and tradition, claiming the other side has a radical agenda.
Am I doing it right?
Getting there. Don't for Libertarians and Leftists.
Conservative - Preserving what is right in society.
Liberal - Promoting change to what is wrong in society.
Ultra... To the detriment of the opposite. e.g. An Ultra liberal will promote change to what is wrong in society without compunction as to preserving what is currently right. Ultraconservative - hanging on to what is right in society without any consideration of improvements to what is wrong.
Right - If government stays out of the way, it will allow people the freedom to succeed to their abilities.
Left - If government stands on the sidelines, it will allow those people less capable to fail and suffer.
Moderate- Don't restrict me too much but also don't become an uncaring SOB when I need help.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Republican - Rich old white dudes protecting the rich and starting unnecessary wars, claiming to want smaller government yet historically increasing government's reach and power.
Democrat - Socialist tree-huggers who want to spend money on unnecessary social programs, claiming to want smaller government yet historically increasing government's reach and power.
Conservative - Fundamentalist Christians pushing their ideals but pretending they're for the objective good, claiming the other side has a radical agenda.
Liberal - Hippies with no sense of direction other than what they want that second with no sense for hard work and tradition, claiming the other side has a radical agenda.
Am I doing it right?
Getting there. Don't for Libertarians and Leftists.
Libertarians - Are in college.
Leftists - Listen to talk radio, but turn it down so it's only on in the background just so they can "hear both sides."
Assuming the spectrum is being limited to the United States, liberal and conservative can essentially be substituted for left and right wing, respectively. Well, if we're going off a political spectrum, which I don't necessarily find useful. That said, I can see the appeal, because it dramatically simplifies the issues of classification; though that's also why I don't like using such a system.
Also, we have to account for the fact that Republicans and Democrats, having each taken over one side of the spectrum, will largely define what is means to be a conservative or a liberal in the US; at least outside of academia.
All that said, left and right wing, in the US, encompass many political position, though in general you'll see the following:
Melissa is pretty much correct with with both the Right and the Conservative Label.
I have this conversation a lot with the more Conservative folks at work, including the Tea Party followers.
They start making the argument that Conservatism stands for reducing government regulation, "keeping government out of our lives", letting people make decisions instead of government. When I try to point out that many of the activities and believes of the traditional "conservative" movement calls for increasing Government regulation in peoples lives based on the value system of "conservatives". After the mandatory "you don't know what you are talking about" I usually start with my list of "conservative" values and government regulations:
1) The conservative viewpoints on marriage: We need to increase government regulation to prevent gay people from being able to get married. Since they failed at the state level they are now even abandoning the usual conservative rally cry of "The federal government should not tell states what to do" and proposing a federal law to regulate marriage.
2) Health care: Conservatives continue to scream that government should not be able to have any say in health care, but continue to push for law after law that tells a doctor what he can and cannot do in regards to reproductive rights.
3) Drugs: Conservatives want to tell people what they can and cannot partake in based on their value system.
4) Religion: Since Islam is evil, we need to restrict where mosques can be build, what believe systems can be followed, etc..
5) Language: Instead of a government that speaks the language of the people, conservatives demand that everyone speaks the language of the Government. Who works for who here?
I strongly think that the whole "Liberals want more government, Conservatives want less government" is very simplistic and wrong on many levels. Both systems want more government regulations based on their value system.
I think a system that would be a little more accurate is this:
"Liberals want less government regulations in private lives, and more regulations on businesses. Conservatives want more regulations in private lives, and less regulations on businesses."
Phanatik wrote:
Conservatives advocate for life, personal responsibility, free markets, accountability, religion, and at an extreme anarchism.
Generally, in the US, anarchism is associated with the left; though it doesn't really fit on either side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:Liberals push for separation of church and state to do away with religion. (that phrase comes from a personal letter from T. Jefferson, not the constitution.)
In what way does the separation of Church and state do away with religion?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
The words don't have to be there achieve the goal. Honestly, I wonder why tax breaks for churches are constitutionally viable as a law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' Maybe the Supreme Court decided it was okay? Not that I'm complaining. Most churches kind of need the exception.
Churches are usually 501(c) organizations, they don't get tax breaks because they're churches.
You kind of have to take a measure of what kind of conservative you're talking about. If all they ever do is regurgitate talking points from Glenn Beck or Bill Oriely you probably don't have hold of a conservative so much as a Republican.
In America a Republican that calls himself right wing is really quite left of center. We have somehow equated Republican to conservative and Democrat to liberal. These terms are not apt.
Republicans are political liberals, social conservatives and religious progressives and can't really figure out which side of center they want to jump on the economy. Democrats are political liberals, social progressives, and religious conservatives (yeah it's like that), and economic liberals.
dogma wrote:Churches are usually 501(c) organizations, they don't get tax breaks because they're churches.
Really? I thought there was some tax code that gave breaks to religious bodies. So are they just covered by general non-profit laws? Well that solves that mystery
4) Religion: Since Islam is evil, we need to restrict where mosques can be build, what believe systems can be followed, etc..
Smartest thing ive read on here for a while!
I am a very strong conservative Christian, but I have a very strong respect for separation of church and state. Once we ban one religion (which is what some of the folks here in Oklahoma are proposing), then what religion is next?
Here in the Bible-Belt conservatism almost comes down to this: Conservatives want to make laws that force people to act like good little Christians (no abortion, no homosexuals, no being able to buy beer on Sunday), they basically would love to codify the Old Testament into law. My view as a Christian is that forcing people to "act like Christians" does not make anybody Christian, but that argument falls on closed ears here.
My personal political ideology is a mix in the middle of the spectrum. I am a member of the Pirate Party, I lean more towards a Social Market Economy with a slant towards a mixed economy where there is some government subsidy to ensure that people have access to basic needed resources, I think that people should be able to pretty much do whatever they want with their body as long as they do not hurt others, I don't think that it is outrageous to make laws and regulations that protect the environment, I don't think that taxes are evil, I think that Universities should be mostly free, I think that we need a universal healthcare system but not a single payer system like the British......I think that is enough for right now
LordofHats wrote:
Really? I thought there was some tax code that gave breaks to religious bodies. So are they just covered by general non-profit laws? Well that solves that mystery
I don't know of any laws, but churches do get a lot of leeway regarding the restriction on political activity governing 501(c)(3) orgs.
To clarify my "I consider myself a Conservative Christian but politically liberal" label: I think that religion is a personal concept and that if you want people to act "Christian" than the process to obtain that goal should be evangelism, not using the political system to force people to act "Christian".
d-usa wrote:...no being able to buy beer on Sunday
Now there's something worth starting a revolution over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Pirate Party? Do they serve dark rum? Me likes me some rum arrr!
Might I recommend Cachaça? It isn't dark, but with some lime it is fantastic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:To clarify my "I consider myself a Conservative Christian but politically liberal" label: I think that religion is a personal concept and that if you want people to act "Christian" than the process to obtain that goal should be evangelism, not using the political system to force people to act "Christian".
Frazzled wrote:Pirate Party? Do they serve dark rum? Me likes me some rum arrr!
I do love me some rum, but that is not the focus of the pirates
The overly simplified platform:
Copyright/Trademark reform.
Government accountability and transparency.
Personal Privacy, especially considering electronic media (crazy stuff like "you should need a warrant before you can get the GPS data from my cell phone provider letting the cops know everywhere I have been for the last 6 months, and yes, currently you don't need a warrant).
Those are probably the big three, but many more can be fit under the various "big" labels of the platform.
Excellent. Looks like more of a funtime drink. Shall have to try it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Pirate Party? Do they serve dark rum? Me likes me some rum arrr!
I do love me some rum, but that is not the focus of the pirates
The overly simplified platform:
Copyright/Trademark reform.
Government accountability and transparency.
Personal Privacy, especially considering electronic media (crazy stuff like "you should need a warrant before you can get the GPS data from my cell phone provider letting the cops know everywhere I have been for the last 6 months, and yes, currently you don't need a warrant).
Those are probably the big three, but many more can be fit under the various "big" labels of the platform.
Me likey. Add a rum plank to your platform and I am in.
AustonT wrote:
Democrats are political liberals, social progressives, and religious conservatives (yeah it's like that), and economic liberals.
Religious conservatives?
I think you need to look into what a religious conservative is. That phrase has a very particular meaning.
Religious conservatives principally seek to apply the teachings of particular religions to politics, sometimes by merely proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times by having those teachings influence laws.
Is Christian Religious Conservatism Compatible with the Liberal Social Welfare State?
Abstract:
This article examines the rise of Christian religious conservatism and explores whether the theological views of the conservative Christian movement are compatible with the liberal social welfare state. The authors conclude that the driving force behind social change should remain with the state, even though faith-based initiatives can provide some basic supports that the social welfare state can use.
Democrats in America often use the tenets of true religious conservatism, charity and care for the common man, to enact legislation. That is religious conservatism.
AustonT wrote:
Democrats in America often use the tenets of true religious conservatism, charity and care for the common man, to enact legislation. That is religious conservatism.
First, I'm not sure what you wrote, and what you quoted.
Second, what I believe you quoted does not seem to support your apparent definition of religious conservatism.
Third, religious conservatism doesn't necessarily have any bearing on charity and care for the common man.
Fourth, the distinction is a matter of motivation, no one in their right mind would ever claim that Democrats tend to be motivated by religious conservatism; which is largely, in America, interchangeable with religious fundamentalism.
Yeah, seriously-- religious conservatives are sometimes some of the most hateful people I've ever met. They see no conradiction intheir hatefulness and their religion, and in fact think their religion justifies their hate.
Probably just a few steps below skinheads for certain ones I know. Of course, sometimes they are skinheads.
@Dogma you are right it does not necessarily agree with what I'm saying. It's just the abstract and I'm not allowed to post whole articles. The meat of it is that true religious conservatist views embody the ideology and spirit of the social welfare state.
It get esoteric suffice to say I'm willing to give up on the religious conservatism thing because you are right there is a rift between what it's supposed to mean and what it IS interpreted as. It's like tryig to make gay mean happy again.
Melissia wrote:Yeah, seriously-- religious conservatives are sometimes some of the most hateful people I've ever met. They see no conradiction intheir hatefulness and their religion, and in fact think their religion justifies their hate.
Probably just a few steps below skinheads for certain ones I know. Of course, sometimes they are skinheads.
You, not so much. Just because a person or group of people is hateful doesn't make thier religion hateful, nor does it justify hate. Especially since I can only assume that we are talking about Christianity and Christian Fundamentalism. Since Christians were originally ostracized and martyred for being pacifists, and that Christianity is a religion founded on love and forgiveness, this is another case of separate the person from what they say they are into what they are: hateful and distinctly unchristian.
AustonT wrote:@Dogma you are right it does not necessarily agree with what I'm saying. It's just the abstract and I'm not allowed to post whole articles. The meat of it is that true religious conservatist views embody the ideology and spirit of the social welfare state.
It get esoteric suffice to say I'm willing to give up on the religious conservatism thing because you are right there is a rift between what it's supposed to mean and what it IS interpreted as. It's like tryig to make gay mean happy again.
I think that as I grew (and as I am still growing) in my Christian faith, I have become more conservative in my Christian beliefs, but more liberal in my political beliefs.
To me my faith is not about "how can I tell people what not to do", but the focus for me has become more about "what can I do for others". In my opinion, the liberal politics of "welfare, protecting others and creation (ie: Hippie politics, protecting trees and such), less military interventions" seem to have more of a Biblical justification than the "don't abort that baby, and get a job to take care of your 4th child, no I'm not giving you any money" conservative view.
I know that a big part of the conservative and/or libertarian viewpoint is that there should be no government charity and that this role should be fulfilled by religious institutions, but while that sounds good it does not work out that way in real life. If churches were to pick who gets to receive welfare, would there be a guarantee that the "gay homeless AIDS patients shelter" gets any help? Or would they be left to suffer for their "sins"?
d-USA wrote:I think that as I grew (and as I am still growing) in my Christian faith, I have become more conservative in my Christian beliefs, but more liberal in my political beliefs.
To me my faith is not about "how can I tell people what not to do", but the focus for me has become more about "what can I do for others". In my opinion, the liberal politics of "welfare, protecting others and creation (ie: Hippie politics, protecting trees and such), less military interventions" seem to have more of a Biblical justification than the "don't abort that baby, and get a job to take care of your 4th child, no I'm not giving you any money" conservative view.
This is basically the point I was driving at and what religious conservatism should really mean, mixed with a little liberal social equality and enacted into law.
Instead, at least here in America, religious conservative is the polite way to say flying rodent gak crazy religious loony.
d-USA wrote:I think that as I grew (and as I am still growing) in my Christian faith, I have become more conservative in my Christian beliefs, but more liberal in my political beliefs.
To me my faith is not about "how can I tell people what not to do", but the focus for me has become more about "what can I do for others". In my opinion, the liberal politics of "welfare, protecting others and creation (ie: Hippie politics, protecting trees and such), less military interventions" seem to have more of a Biblical justification than the "don't abort that baby, and get a job to take care of your 4th child, no I'm not giving you any money" conservative view.
This is basically the point I was driving at and what religious conservatism should really mean, mixed with a little liberal social equality and enacted into law.
Instead, at least here in America, religious conservative is the polite way to say flying rodent gak crazy religious loony.
The "Religious Conservative" label that can be applied to a portion of the population in the US could just as easily be applied to the "Religious Conservatives" in Iran, Afghanistan, or any other Muslim Theocracy. And pretty much for the same reason. They want the same thing, just based on a different book. But the current "religious right" in the US would love to set up a Christian Theocracy in the US, while at the same time condemning any non-Christian Theocracy as a danger to democracy everywhere. So I totally get where you are coming from.
AustonT wrote:You, not so much. Just because a person or group of people is hateful doesn't make thier religion hateful, nor does it justify hate.
Read the post again. Emphasis mine:
Melissia wrote:Yeah, seriously-- religious conservatives are sometimes some of the most hateful people I've ever met. They see no conradiction intheir hatefulness and their religion, and in fact think their religion justifies their hate.
Notice those words. I'm merely saying religion does not exempt one from being a bad person, in fact, I'm not even convinced it makes people better people as a whole-- those who want an excuse to do bad things will use religion as an excuse, those who need a reason to do good things will use religion as their reason.
And none of this has anything to do with conservative vs liberal. PETA and ecoterrorists justify their actions with religion sometimes, too.
That's one of the things that annoys me the most about living in Iowa: apparently you need to get a special liquor license to sell alcohol on Sunday. One of the local supermarket lacks it, so if I go shopping on a Sunday, I can't get booze.
Dear Religious Moralists who made this law: Jesus turned water into wine, not the other way around.
AustonT wrote:You, not so much. Just because a person or group of people is hateful doesn't make thier religion hateful, nor does it justify hate.
Read the post again. Emphasis mine:
Melissia wrote:Yeah, seriously-- religious conservatives are sometimes some of the most hateful people I've ever met. They see no conradiction intheir hatefulness and their religion, and in fact think their religion justifies their hate.
Notice those words. I'm merely saying religion does not exempt one from being a bad person, in fact, I'm not even convinced it makes people better people as a whole-- those who want an excuse to do bad things will use religion as an excuse, those who need a reason to do good things will use religion as their reason.
And none of this has anything to do with conservative vs liberal. PETA and ecoterrorists justify their actions with religion sometimes, too.
Maybe it's the sweeping overhanded generalizations you've made in the past that make me assume that you are doing so again.
Conservatism is mostly about trying to control peoples' lives via social laws (IE banning gay marriage, banning abortion, forcing people to pray in school, etc-- basically force their backwards religious views on everyone else in the form of laws, rules, and regulations, in most cases, but communism was also conservative in this regards).
I think you're referring to "right wing" rather than "conservative". No, the two are not the same.
Well, liberlism is usually pro healthcare. Reducing the number of bullets in people could be seen as a healthcare initiative. It's a form of lead poisoning right?
And by my definition the sky is purple, banks are evil, and a Dakka user named Melissa sacrifices baby three toed sloths to her demonic master. That doesn't make it anymore true.
Since American Conservatives are more accurately described as conservative liberals, and thier overarching view is that civil liberties should be broad and unlimited. You can't push social conservatism which is a fringe group on conservative at large, especially when you are actually referring to American conservatives. That's called sweeping generalization. What you are really talking about is Republicans, who are not conservatives and are not synonymous with conservatives no matter how hard they try. They are progressives.
My problem with the 'label' business is that no matter what you are, the 'other' side is always changing, twisting and defining it
to what they want the people to think it means.
AustonT wrote:American Conservatives [...] overarching view is that civil liberties should be broad and unlimited.
I don't buy this, because so-called American Conservatives care about anything but civil liberties. American conservatives are all about restricting the civil liberties of anyone who isn't like them.
but its so hard not to.
I think its fair to label true anti-abortionists "fringe." It's hard to sympathize with someone who blindly believes that no abortion should be performed under any circumstances. Also easy to call that persons beliefs "extreeme" which is the base definition of a fringe group.
Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views -thefreedictionary.com
When given only the choice "pro-life" and "pro-choice" its a lot easier to vote just one way or the other. Both are extreeme views. If the choice was: pro-choice only to save a womans life, pro-choice also to protect a womans physical health, pro choice also to protect a womans mental health, pro choice also on socioecomnomic grounds, pro choice without restriction (within reason: gestational and other limits), and pro-life. Im pretty sure the pro-life number starts to hit number you might call "fringe" Its really the last two categories we are given as a choice, and those two fringes have brought us to the decision point. I'm sure there are pro-life "liberals" and pro-choice "conservatives" as per Melissa's all encompassing definitions.
I'm also sure that after forcing rape victims into bringing babies to term, imposing the death penalty on homsexual marriages, chasing all the illegals out, and establishing thier autocracy Melissa's conservatives club baby seals.
Her liberals use contraceptive drugs to perform chemical abortions on death row inmates, currently in rehabilitation on probabtion while engaged to thier same sex spouses.
Melissia wrote:Which is true by my definition. Conservatism is about controlling people's lives, whereas liberalism is about expansion of civil liberties.
Just to spit gas into the fire. I bolded that part on purpose. The expansion of civil liberties is an interesting place to hold your ground for liberals, which I have long since determined Melissa used in place of "Democrats"
Lets start with Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, President of the United States 1913-1921. Wildly racist, and opposed to women's sufferage (Wilson also receives undue credit for the development of Women's Suffrage during his administration. In fact, he personally opposed giving women the right to vote, and his wife was vehemently against it. He only stopped opposing it (and having suffragists arrested) after he became convinced that it was politically inexpedient to oppose it.) he also responsible for the enactment of the Espionage and Sedition Acts that slammed civil liberties in a way never seen before.
Maybe more modern?
Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, President of the United States 1953-1962. Dynamic conservative, expanded the New Deal, made Welfare a cabinet level position, and introduced and signed into law the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts DESPITE opposition from then Senate Majority Leader LBJ.
Its fair to mention that LBJ subsequently pushed through JFKs much stronger Civil Rights Act (more like Ikes original) opened immigration, and signed medicare into law.
I'm confused which ones are liberals?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
AustonT wrote:American Conservatives [...] overarching view is that civil liberties should be broad and unlimited.
I don't buy this, because so-called American Conservatives care about anything but civil liberties. American conservatives are all about restricting the civil liberties of anyone who isn't like them.
Eisenhower would be considered a liberal today, just like Barry Goldwater. The political compass changes over time so it is difficult to compare someone from the present with someone from the past. What the label means changes.
Right now, essentailly the entire (or at least the core, most important parts) social platform of conservativse is restricting marriage, banning abortion, punishing criminals, and deporting hispanics.
All of them a restriction of civil liberties. This is what defines the conservatism of right now.
Melissia wrote:And? Why would I care about an older president?
Right now, essentailly the entire (or at least the core, most important parts) social platform of conservativse is restricting marriage, banning abortion, punishing criminals, and deporting hispanics.
All of them a restriction of civil liberties. This is what defines the conservatism of right now.
Yes why should you allow history, or little things like facts to stand in the way of your bigoted political ideology.
Here's a link to the last presidential campaigns platform.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/2008platform.pdf You are welcome to cite where civil liberties are infringed. Weather I or you agree with it or not they believe in extending civil liberties to unborn children, it's a pro life stance. But extending the 14th amendment to unborn children, extending public health care to unborn children, and mandating care to children born alive during late term abortions all seem like the expansion of civil liberties to me.
Deporting illegal immigrants shouldn't even be a political issue, it's enforcing our laws and borders, just like every other country does. Since you seem to think we are just targeting Hispanics we should adopt Mexicos immigration policies. Being Hispanic surly their policies aren't fueled by racism.
Restricting marriage, meh, it's a losing battle they haven't quite let go of yet.
And "punishing criminals"... I'm dumbfounded. Any credibility you may have had before evaporated right there. All politicians support punishig criminals. It's not like fishing you don't catch and release.
So let's recap.
Extending civil liberties to unborn children.
Enforcing immigration laws, illegal immigrants don't have civil liberties. They aren't part of our society and aren't protected by our laws.
Restricting the right of homosexuals to marry.
Enforcing the criminal code to protect the safety of the community. So the body public is guaranteed safety and security, pretty sure that's a civil liberty too.
Now back to the beginning, American conservatism began after WWII that makes Ike the first conservative president. He remains relevant as the foundation of the conservatives in America. The party hasn't changed that much over time. Conservatism hasn't changed, the right, which claims to be conservative has strayed from it's core values. You started a thread about the left and right and conservative and liberals, but failed to acknowledge that none of them of mutually exclusive; you also failed to address the real groups that you are talking about. Republicans and Democrats.
More reference material for you to not read.
In the United States, conservatism developed after the Second World War when Russell Kirk and other writers identified an American conservative tradition based on the ideas of Edmund Burke. However many writers do not accept American conservatism as genuine and consider it to be a variety of liberalism.
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism." Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party. However, during the era of segregation many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a key role in the Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress from 1937 to 1963.
Melissia wrote:Seeing as it came up in another thread-- what's your views on these labels? Not a discussion on the actual merits of what each "group"'s views are, but what exactly each label means. Even though we probably won't agree, it'll help get an idea of where people are coming from when they use these kinds of terms.
For myself... each pair indicates a spectrum, and everything is separate but no exclusive. Let's start with the former pair.
Right wing indicates one leans towards free-market solutions to economic problems, while left-wing prefers government intervention as a solution to economic problems.
-- Right wingers typically advocate deregulation, little to no government oversight, fewer if any government bailouts, etc-- and on the extreme end, a complete and utter separation of public and private sectors, essentially economic anarchism.
-- Left wingers typically advocate heavier regulation, more overnment oversight, government bailouts of companies, etc-- and on the extreme end, abolishment of the private sector entirely so that everything is government-run, essentially communism.
Left and Right wing politics deals with more issues than just the economy.
Speaking for my country (UK), I'd say that modern British conservatism places the emphasis on individual responsibility, but also on individual liberty. The government should play as little a part in running your life as possible, whether in the case of abortion, or who you share your bed with. Cameron has just stated in no uncertain terms that he supports gay marriage (and he used the word 'marriage') because he supports marriage:
Tory PM David Cameron wrote:I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.
I'm a modern Tory because these are my values, not the other way around. Equal rights for British citizens, because the government shouldn't decide which of us get to have rights.
AustonT wrote: But extending the 14th amendment to unborn children, extending public health care to unborn children, and mandating care to children born alive during late term abortions all seem like the expansion of civil liberties to me.
It's a restriction of women's rights, with the "rights of babies" nothing more than a pretty-looking mask-- once the child comes out of the womb, the party at least stops even pretending to give a gak about it. Certainly they almost never support means of ensuring the baby doesn't suffer.
AustonT wrote:Deporting illegal immigrants shouldn't even be a political issue, it's enforcing our laws and borders, just like every other country does.
Except that the way they're doing it is often invasive of legal immigrants, or even actual citizens, and certainly they're doing it without doing anything to solve the problem which is related to civil liberties-- that there simply are too many restrictions on the right to immigrate, so many who want or even need to come to the US don't have a choice but to do so illegally... or stay in Mexico, which is essentially a bullet-riddled mess right now. A choice I wouldn't want to have to make to be sure. Or Syria, which isn't much better. Or any number of countries in turmoil.
AustonT wrote:Restricting marriage, meh, it's a losing battle they haven't quite let go of yet.
So? They're still arguing for the restriction of civil liberties.
AustonT wrote:And "punishing criminals"
... at the cost of restricting the civil rights of the accused. Death penalty is the ultimate sanction and removal of the rights of a living being, and after one is killed by the state in such a way regardless of actual guilt or innocence there's no turning back. The death penalty is not the only way they want to restrict the rights of the accused either.
AustonT wrote:
Deporting illegal immigrants shouldn't even be a political issue, it's enforcing our laws and borders, just like every other country does.
You'll also note that most other countries don't enforce their laws evenly either. Law enforcement isn't just about following the instructions written on a piece of paper, there are also issues of practicality to consider.
AustonT wrote:
All politicians support punishig criminals. It's not like fishing you don't catch and release.
But generally you don't find all politicians using the same rhetoric about punishing criminals, and the GOP most likely has a higher proportion of politicians who work at their "tough on crime" image.
AustonT wrote:
Now back to the beginning, American conservatism began after WWII that makes Ike the first conservative president.
American conservatism has been around for a lot longer than that, its just that the current brand of conservatism can trace its direct intellectual roots to the 50's; especially in terms of defense policy and anti-communism.
AustonT wrote:
He remains relevant as the foundation of the conservatives in America.
Eisenhower would most likely be considered a liberal in the present climate, and especially so in the sense in which liberalism is juxtaposed against conservatism which is being considered in this thread.
AustonT wrote:
The party hasn't changed that much over time. Conservatism hasn't changed, the right, which claims to be conservative has strayed from it's core values.
The party, presuming you mean the Republican Party, has changed a lot over time. Presidents like the first Bush, Nixon, Ford, and Eisenhower would not likely be welcome in the GOP today; certainly not as legitimate candidates.
Albatross wrote:Speaking for my country (UK), I'd say that modern British conservatism places the emphasis on individual responsibility, but also on individual liberty. The government should play as little a part in running your life as possible, whether in the case of abortion, or who you share your bed with. Cameron has just stated in no uncertain terms that he supports gay marriage (and he used the word 'marriage') because he supports marriage:
Tory PM David Cameron wrote:I once stood before a Conservative conference and said it shouldn’t matter whether commitment was between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man. You applauded me for that. Five years on, we’re consulting on legalising gay marriage. And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative.
I'm a modern Tory because these are my values, not the other way around. Equal rights for British citizens, because the government shouldn't decide which of us get to have rights.
Our Tories used to be like your Tories but then they disbanded and reformed to be more like American conservatives. I don't even like it when they call them Tories anymore, that's not accurate imo. They're just Conservatives.
Somewhere along the lines the Conservative vs Liberal thing when it comes to social issues got way out of whack.
At the core, conservatives want as little government involvement in their lives as possible. The effect of this would be states rights on issues of abortion, as it used to be, most states would allow it, some would not. Gays would be allowed to marry, given a state allows it, and their church will do it. People would be able to use any
drugs they want, as long as their state allows it, etc.
The seperation of church and state as defined in the USA founding documents, that the state shall not enforce or sponsor a religion. Which does not mean the two are entirely seperate, just that the state does not say "this religion is good, this one is bad."
Defense of the country and its boundaries, aka immigration laws and enforcement are a federal matter.
This is now considered libertarian, which a lot of people are, if they took the time to honestly evaluate themselves, and their positions on things.
There are some really good political spectrum tests online. There was one I really liked years ago but could not locate again.
A lot of the newer ones, ask questions in a more skewed way, and pair things in questions that are mutually exclusive. So be warned before you take the quizzes and reallly read and think about them.
Me, I am a right leaning libertarian. About 2 dots down, and 5 to the right.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:At the core, conservatives want as little government involvement in their lives as possible.
Gays would be allowed to marry, given a state allows it
... so you're saying state government isn't government, what?
That doesn't make any sense. Especially since our state governments are far more corrupt and given to accepting money for favors than our federal government (which is saying something) as well as fully willing to do everything they can to try to rig elections (see redistricting for a well known example).
Melissa - of course state government is government, but since the politicians are more localized, and not thousands of miles away. It is easier to hold their feet to the fire on issues. Also if you do not like how one state is run, you can move to another.
Most of the issues you raised in the original post have become national issues, so seemed you were talking federal politics.
Now does my response make more sense? The Federal government should have very little to no involvement in your daily life, marriage, sales tax, property tax, school funding, mass transit projects, abortion, etc etc etc. The Federal government should be doing the bare minimum, defending the country as a whole from invasion.
I even qualified it all with the fact that I am a Libertarian. You know, one of those whacky whacky Libertarians.
Now I can post but I'm going to try to be brief.
@Feeder it's not all encompassing I landed left and on the authoritarian side. Ten minutes with me in a verbal political discussion and you'll realize how disturbingly right and up on that chart I should be.
@dogma (no quotes, I'm being lazy)
Immigration-true
Crime- true
Conservatives since WWII- yes conservatism in America is older but not in the Republican party and not in this form.
The Republicans post war embraced Russell Kirk's Liberal Conservatism, eventually the liberal part got dropped and it was called American Conservatism. This shoehorns into Ike, yes he was a liberal; a liberal conservative. You or someone else also mentioned Goldwater, also fair and also a liberal.
"the party"-when I said that I was using a more amorphous term than the Republican Party as you and I might refer to their leadership and the people we see on TV. I actually meant the people who form the core of the party and their beliefs. Those "moderate voters" that both parties are chasing so hard are the true core of the Republican Party, as it once was. You included the first Bush in the group that wouldn't fit in today, at first I disagreed, then I remembered that Bush Sr only grudgingly accepted Reagan the brand of conservatism he represented. So I guess he really is the last of the Old Guard. There are some, and increasingly more liberal conservatives in the Republican party, I think Rick Perry is one of them to a certain extent, so was McCain once. The blue dog Democrats and the centrist republicans are the real American conservatives or liberal conservatives if you prefer the more appropriate label. And the party now touting themselves as Republicans and conservatives are neither. I've agitated for years in the discussion group I belong to that if a national presence grew to appeal to the original Republican party as recognized before Reagan, we would see the left side of the Republicans and the right side of the Democrats form a legitimate party of true American Conservatives or neoliberals. The core groups of both parties I believe stand there. The weakness of the American political system is there is no variety, and long standing partisanship has become almost hereditary. There are different shades of conservative and liberals not represented by Red and Blue. Ok now I'm waxing a bit out of answering you so I'll stop.
Party=people not politicians in what I said, my bad for being unclear.
@Melissa it's unfair to you and I know that, but nothing you say even approaches legitimacy anymore in my eyes. You appear bigoted and close minded, and you attempt to extend radical views as normal. You have that very right, but I now discard much of what you say off hand. It's more about being objective than right. Here's why:
Melissa wrote:there simply are too many restrictions on the right to immigrate
There is no such right, implied or explicit.
Melissa wrote:at the cost of restricting the civil rights of the accused
This is also blatantly untrue. Four of the Ten amendments in the bill of rights are extended to suspected criminals, in each phase of the justice process. We used to hang horse thieves, when I hear a national level conservative call for the death penalty for GTA, I'm moving to Israel.
Here's a quote for you Melissa, and really anyone. If you are interested in politics you should read the referenced book. It's old, obviously but still relevant and entertaining.
When I finished Carlyle’s French Revolution in 1871, I was a Girondin; every time I have read it since, I have read it differently – being influenced and changed, little by little, by life and environment ... and now I lay the book down once more, and recognize that I am a Sansculotte! – And not a pale, characterless Sansculotte, but a Marat.
AustonT wrote:
I actually meant the people who form the core of the party and their beliefs.
Based on surveys, that means people that dislike government, the rights of mothers, and like the rights of potential people.
Also, they really dislike anyone who is fond of the same sex.
AustonT wrote:
Those "moderate voters" that both parties are chasing so hard are the true core of the Republican Party, as it once was.
That's a No True Scotsman.
AustonT wrote:
You included the first Bush in the group that wouldn't fit in today, at first I disagreed, then I remembered that Bush Sr only grudgingly accepted Reagan the brand of conservatism he represented. So I guess he really is the last of the Old Guard.
Would that be the Reagan brand of conservatism that called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and cut taxes, or the Reagan brand of conservatism that raised taxes and shook Gorbachev's hand?
AustonT wrote:
There are some, and increasingly more liberal conservatives in the Republican party, I think Rick Perry is one of them...
Then you've not listened to anything Perry has said.
AustonT wrote:
I've agitated for years in the discussion group I belong to that if a national presence grew to appeal to the original Republican party as recognized before Reagan, we would see the left side of the Republicans and the right side of the Democrats form a legitimate party of true American Conservatives or neoliberals.
But, historically, that process merely narrowed the political discourse.
AustonT wrote:
I actually meant the people who form the core of the party and their beliefs.
Based on surveys, that means people that dislike government, the rights of mothers, and like the rights of potential people.
Also, they really dislike anyone who is fond of the same sex.
AustonT wrote:
Those "moderate voters" that both parties are chasing so hard are the true core of the Republican Party, as it once was.
That's a No True Scotsman.
which surveys are you referring to?
There is also a breakdown in one of the polls on abortion that shows that even though a majority of Americans still find abortion morally wrong they also hold the majority opinion it should be legal. I couldn't find an easy link to it. You'll note the political separations in the last poll.
As far as a "no true Scotsman" I believe you are incorrect. I specifically identified a group, the moderates, ARE the true core of the Republican Party. Thereby identifying a true Republican is a moderate, although most Republicans that support traditional party stances on social liberalism and economic conservatism are branded RINO. so yet again to adresss a no true scotsman and phrase it specifically to the rhetorical argument. A true Republican is a moderate, but a true moderate need not be a Republican.
dogma wrote:
AustonT wrote:
You included the first Bush in the group that wouldn't fit in today, at first I disagreed, then I remembered that Bush Sr only grudgingly accepted Reagan the brand of conservatism he represented. So I guess he really is the last of the Old Guard.
Would that be the Reagan brand of conservatism that called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and cut taxes, or the Reagan brand of conservatism that raised taxes and shook Gorbachev's hand?
Neoconservatism.
dogma wrote:
AustonT wrote:
There are some, and increasingly more liberal conservatives in the Republican party, I think Rick Perry is one of them...
Then you've not listened to anything Perry has said.
I know that he is a political turncoat and has deep liberal roots, he may have pushed himself to where he is through political expediency or a true belief in social conservatism. I believe the former from his proposal to extend education benefits to illegal immigrants.
dogma wrote:
AustonT wrote:
I've agitated for years in the discussion group I belong to that if a national presence grew to appeal to the original Republican party as recognized before Reagan, we would see the left side of the Republicans and the right side of the Democrats form a legitimate party of true American Conservatives or neoliberals.
But, historically, that process merely narrowed the political discourse.
What exactly are you referencing? The Progressive party(s), the formation of the Republicans in the collapse of the Whigs? These are the most recent splits and collapses. The formation of the republicans immediately preceding the current two party system. The Progressives opened the field and provided a wider discourse for at least 2 decades in the Republican party. There is a tear inside the Republican party between the neoconservatives and the moderates. And in the Democrats between the Blue Dogs and the Progressives. Were tensions, and voter pressure over the current political climate, to continue to rise in either or both parties a strong fragment of either party, headed by moderates and financed well enough to survive at least a midterm election. Will draw moderates from each side and build a strong third party. Or ideally two new parties and create a four party environment where the choice isn't black or white.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @KamikazeCanuck
I'm probably not. Then again I might be...
I remember someone saying, "if you aren't a liberal in college you're heartless, if you aren't a conservative by middle age you're an idiot" Mark Twain went the other way, so I guess the field is open for interpretation.
Actual, constructive, useful politics is a process of drawing ideas from both sides of politics, and even more from areas entirely outside the very restrictive Liberal and Conservative mindsets. It's a process of looking in depth at the detail of each issue, and tailoring a solution to that issue. Whereas declaring oneself liberal or conservative and assuming whatever broad theory that dictates will apply in all situations is pretty much the opposite of that.
Liberal and Conservative are really no different to football teams. Pick one, and cheer for it blindly. Listen to the news, taking every bad thing said about the other dearly to your heart, while dismissing whatever bad stuff is said about your side as 'biased'. It's just an easy means of building an identity - being a conservative or a liberal doesn't have much at all to do with how politics and governance actually works, but has everything to do with the kind of person wants to associate with, and as with all identity politics, identifying the kind of people that our kind of people really hate.
Really, it's no different to a kid dressing all in black to be part of the goth community, and complaining about 'the norms'.
Phanatik wrote:Your definitions for right-wingers contradict themselves. How can one be at worst both for anarchy AND restrictive civil liberties?
Being an extremely broad umbrella that captures a variety of political groups, contradiction is unavoidable. The right wing includes both strident anti-government sorts, and social conservatives.
In the same way, there is both considerable support and considerable opposition with the broad liberal umbrella for globalisation.
As for what Liberals advocate - how can one person be for both the right to kill an unborn baby, but against the death penalty for the worst element of society?
It isn't rocket science, once you accept that many people don't believe a collection of cells with the capacity to become a human being is not the same thing as a human being. Not everyone believes that, and that's fine, but it's perfectly understandable if you do.
And at worst, Liberals tend towards more government - which means autocracy.
No, it doesn't. Autocracy is a word with a specific meaning, and it's one you need to learn if you're going to try and talk about politics.
It would make sense to say liberalism at its worst would mean authoritarianism.
Liberals push for separation of church and state to do away with religion.
No, crazy people from team Conservative pretend that's what team Liberal want. Allowing people the free practice of their faiths is so far removed from 'doing away with religion' as to be utterly ridiculous.
d-usa wrote:To clarify my "I consider myself a Conservative Christian but politically liberal" label: I think that religion is a personal concept and that if you want people to act "Christian" than the process to obtain that goal should be evangelism, not using the political system to force people to act "Christian".
I find your views a breath of fresh air and wish to subscribe to your news letter.
Melissia wrote:Which is true by my definition. Conservatism is about controlling people's lives, whereas liberalism is about expansion of civil liberties.
To the extent that conservatism has any kind of coherent meaning, it certainly doesn’t mean controlling people’s lives. The mistake your making is taking one specific group that are broadly aligned with the general conservative movement, the theocrats, and declaring them as the absolute of conservatism.
Also why I don't consider hardline stances for extreme gun control to be liberal...
But they are. To the extent that titles like liberal and conservative are to be of any use in describing anything, you have to be willing to acknowledge that groups that operate within the liberal element You don't get to pick the label you like to identify
AustonT wrote:You can't push social conservatism which is a fringe group on conservative at large, especially when you are actually referring to American conservatives.
Melissia doesn’t get to pretend they define the whole of the party, and you don’t get to pretend they’re a minority. Both of you need to acknowledge they are a major factor within the greater American rightwing, and that’s that.
They are progressives.
No, they’re not. Like Melissia doesn’t get to pretend the gun control activists aren’t part of the greater American left wing, you don’t get to pretend the social conservatives aren’t right wing. They vote overwhelmingly Republican. Their lobby groups and fundraising are all right wing aligned. They’re right wing.
AustonT wrote:Lets start with Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, President of the United States 1913-1921. Wildly racist, and opposed to women's sufferage (Wilson also receives undue credit for the development of Women's Suffrage during his administration. In fact, he personally opposed giving women the right to vote, and his wife was vehemently against it. He only stopped opposing it (and having suffragists arrested) after he became convinced that it was politically inexpedient to oppose it.)
The orientation of political parties changes over time. Trying to declare which party really believes in one thing or another based on political stoushes resolved generations ago is a complete waste of time.
The modern split between the two parties was defined by the rise of progressive movements within the New England sections of the Democratic party, and their drive to civil liberties reform, eventually signed into law by LBJ. This alienated the conservative southern elements of the Democrats, who finally forgot about being angry at the Repbublicans for the Civil War and started being angry at Democrats instead.
This led Nixon to court these voters with the Southern Strategy, and more or less the political alignment of the two sides has followed from there.
Melissia wrote:Right now, essentailly the entire (or at least the core, most important parts) social platform of conservativse is restricting marriage, banning abortion, punishing criminals, and deporting hispanics.
All of them a restriction of civil liberties.
You can argue for abortion as protecting the right of the mother to control her own body, or the right of the unborn to life. Both are useful only as a rallying call for their own side, and utterly useless in defining the frame of the debate.
Punishing criminals and deporting Hispanics are balancing one set of pragmatic needs against another, and again really isn’t much an issue of civil rights. Really half the issue here seems to be you trying to frame things in terms that don’t make sense, just for the sake of gaining a perceived moral high ground by declaring your own side the ‘civil rights side’.
feeder wrote:That's quite interesting. I didn't know I was such a lefty. (-6, -5).
That site has got quite a pronounced leftwing bias in the results. You have to be a fairly hardcore right winger to score a 0 on the right left scale.
AustonT wrote:which surveys are you referring to?
The mistake you've made here is in relying on personal identification, as opposed to people's desired policies and the actual policies of the two parties. Your approach can lead to serious errors when a majority of people have a very poor understanding of the operations of their government and their economy, as is the case in the US right now. For instance, here's a graph showing how people believe income is distributed in the US, how they would like it to be distributed, and how it really is distributed.
People believing in such massive income distribution aren't really conservative, are they?
A true Republican is a moderate, but a true moderate need not be a Republican.
There is no 'true' anything. Whoever the group of people who identify as Republican are, and do in the name of that party... that is what Republicans are. Same for Democrats. Neither term is a thing that various people live or fail to live up to. It's a descriptor for those people who identify as such.
I remember someone saying, "if you aren't a liberal in college you're heartless, if you aren't a conservative by middle age you're an idiot" Mark Twain went the other way, so I guess the field is open for interpretation.
It was Churchill, coming up with a particularly clever way for explaining why he was jumping ship from the out of favour Liberals (UK left wing) for the Conservative Party. Despite the clever turn of phrase, it was nothing but political opportunism.
In general, I’d worry about anyone that picked one broad political ideology, and stuck to it as the solution for all things at all times.
AustonT wrote:
There is also a breakdown in one of the polls on abortion that shows that even though a majority of Americans still find abortion morally wrong they also hold the majority opinion it should be legal. I couldn't find an easy link to it. You'll note the political separations in the last poll.
I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. You cannot simply drop in the results of multiple polls and assume that they represent the same sample, or methodological approach. Moreover, the poll you noted, the last one, actually confirms my statement if we assume that definitions are consistent.
Sorry, but putting numbers up doesn't necessarily help your cause, particularly given that nothing you posted actually dealt with the Party (ie. the GOP) directly; for which you would need to look at ANES.
AustonT wrote:
As far as a "no true Scotsman" I believe you are incorrect. I specifically identified a group, the moderates, ARE the true core of the Republican Party. Thereby identifying a true Republican is a moderate,
And a True Scotsman is a pastiche of William Wallace.
AustonT wrote:
Neoconservatism.
So, basically everyone from Nixon forward?
AustonT wrote:
I know that he is a political turncoat and has deep liberal roots, he may have pushed himself to where he is through political expediency or a true belief in social conservatism. I believe the former from his proposal to extend education benefits to illegal immigrants.
Your definition of conservatism is so obtuse as to be ridiculous, and useless. You're substituting "What I like." for a legitimate attempt at producing a category.
AustonT wrote:What exactly are you referencing?
The entire political history of the United States.
To ape a common argument I see:
X: If we only lacked government we would have perfect capitalism!
Y: Then why did the absence of government give rise to government?
Sebster: Then what DOES define liberalism? Because if the definition is "anything anyone believes when they call themselves a liberal" then the definition is worthless trash to be thrown away.
I prefer a more useful, applicable definition, not one where people cherry pick specific issues and say "[x position] is liberal" without rhyme or reason. There's no logic to that, which is fine for a political commentator who only uses the label as political tools but not for me.
AustonT wrote:There is no such right, implied or explicit.
Right, America isn't a nation of immigrants, we're actually all of us descended from Native Americans. Oh wait.
AustonT wrote:This is also blatantly untrue. Four of the Ten amendments in the bill of rights are extended to suspected criminals
Much to the chagrin of the conservatives of the country.
Melissia wrote:Sebster: Then what DOES define liberalism? Because if the definition is "anything anyone believes when they call themselves a liberal" then the definition is worthless trash to be thrown away.
It actually becomes much simpler when we accept that words have more than one meaning. The technical meaning, which is usually the word in its original usage, and what I call the common meaning, which is the word as someone(s) understand and use it. A word could have infinite common meanings.
So really, the definition is in part whatever someone says it is
EDIT: Really what you're talking about in here is the common meaning, which I doubt you'll ever get everybody to agree on. Liberal means different things to different people (look at the charts in a previous post and note especially how the Democrat dot flies all over). It's a fun discussion and all, but the word in a social context is going to vary widely in use.
As I hope I've made it obvious, I disagree rather strongly with the idea that the words mean whatever random political pundit says it means. Partially because of my dislike of political pundits regardless of what beliefs they claim to hold...
So if that's the position one's gonna take, we're going to have to just agree to disagree.
Melissia wrote:As I hope I've made it obvious, I disagree rather strongly with the idea that the words mean whatever random political pundit says it means. Partially because of my dislike of political pundits regardless of what beliefs they claim to hold...
So if that's the position one's gonna take, we're going to have to just agree to disagree.
It's not really that simple. It's kind of a social exercise. If I decide liberal means "filled with bunnies" I doubt I'll get anywhere because no one will recognize the term that way other than me. Common meanings are socially constructed by groups, but even within groups people will attach additions to a word that aren't necessarily shared by others in the same group. Conservatives I am sure define liberal differently than a liberal does. American's define it differently than various Europeans might. The meaning of a word will change depending on who you're asking, but they only mean anything if others buy into the meaning. EDIT: It can be random, but someone with a random meaning for a word isn't going to get along well with anybody so I don't see anyone really giving words random meaning... unless they want to be a douche
But it DOES seem random, political positions tossed together with little rhyme or reason and people say "and these are all connected ot the same ideology", without justification...
And that's just the political parties, whom I don't expect to be consistent.
Melissia wrote:Which is true by my definition. Conservatism is about controlling people's lives, whereas liberalism is about expansion of civil liberties.
Also why I don't consider hardline stances for extreme gun control to be liberal...
<cough, cough>
Excuse me? Liberalism, at its core, is you are too dumb to know what is good for you and we are going to control you through incentives, restrictions and general PC attitudes about the world. Conservatism, at its core, is about preserving what is good in society. The problem now is that both sides try to regulate their way to victory. As if some restriction or law is going to make everyone aquiesce and bow to your way of thinking. Dumb on both sides.
I have voted conservative for the most part but it is more a matter of I see the liberal ideal but I am totally against the method that they intend to implement it. It is either moon bat stupid or will totally fail based on the cost to enforce and implement.
For example abortion, I think it is wrong on a moral level. I am told that "how dare I infringe on the rights of a woman?" and " a fetus is not a human being." I can accept that we have a difference of opinion and that I don't have a right to impose my beliefs but when the government subsidizes it, I feel I have a right to disagree. If you can morally accept that the result of a pregnancy is not going to result in a human, fine. But don't come asking me to then pay for it when I feel it is murder. That is asking me to stand quietly by and let murder happen. I equate that to being a "good" German citizen in Nazi germany allowing the genocide of the mentally ill, homosexuals, Jews and the like. This is Liberalism CONTROLLING my thoughts and actions (or to be more precise, my inaction).
On a basic level, I can accept capital punishment as a right of the state to impose the penalty. But knowing the flawed justice system, I cannot accept it due to an unequal dispensation of that punishment (males and african-american) as well as the lack of 100% certainty of guilt.
DAaddict wrote:Excuse me? Liberalism, at its core, is you are too dumb to know what is good for you and we are going to control you through incentives, restrictions and general PC attitudes about the world.
Replace "general pc attitudes" with "general Christian attitudes" and this sounds far more like conservatives to me.
DAaddict wrote:Conservatism, at its core, is about preserving what is good in society.
There's nothing good about homophobia (LGBT marriage issue frequently brings up hateful slang and slogans) and misogyny ("Concerned Women for America" comes to mind), two things very commonly associated with conservative groups.
Melissia wrote:Sebster: Then what DOES define liberalism? Because if the definition is "anything anyone believes when they call themselves a liberal" then the definition is worthless trash to be thrown away.
It's a little more complicated than that. Obviously a person who identifies as liberal but is rejected by almost the entirety of everyone else who calls themselves liberal wouldn't be much of an example of a liberal, such as Lyndon LaRouche, who has called himself either a Democrat or a liberal at some stage or another, and may still do so for all I know.
But it is almost always a mistake to let a definition define a group, rather than let the group define the definition. That is to say, going around saying 'you don't fit the definition of what I deem liberal, therefore I consider you not one of us' is a fairly useless way of coming to understand a political movement - especially movements as broad as liberalism and conservatism.
On the other hand, saying 'among the group that considers itself liberal, and that works primarily with other liberals, there is a marked increase in support for greater gun control, therefore gun control can be considered part of the overall liberal movement'.
I prefer a more useful, applicable definition, not one where people cherry pick specific issues and say "[x position] is liberal" without rhyme or reason. There's no logic to that, which is fine for a political commentator who only uses the label as political tools but not for me.
This has nothing to do with political commentators, I don't know why you raised that.
It's got everything to do with giving a meaningful description to a political movement. The primary pushes for increased gun control have come from Democratic congresses. 70% of Democratic voters support greater gun control, while just 27% of Republicans do.
You can say "I am a liberal, and while gun control is generally connected to liberalism, I don't believe in that" and that's fine. But you can't pretend because you don't like a policy it isn't a liberal thing, because you don't get to define what liberalism means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:There's always the age old fallback of liberal is anything I don't like
EDIT: Which I find in US politics is usually how conservatives frame things in their political mindset.
Yeah, like I said in my first post in the thread, we're looking more at identity politics than anything of genuine political substance. Considering oneself a conservative has very little to do with a full and considered view of conservative politics and how they might be best for the country, and everything to do with building one's identity in a very general sense. A major part of that is defining the people that our kind of people hate.
This thread is twelve kinds of aweomse in watching particular posters vent their spleens. It speaks to me, like a small wiener dog telling me to hunt down all the neighborhood squirrels, and display their carcasses as warnings to others.
DAaddict wrote:<cough, cough>
Excuse me? Liberalism, at its core, is you are too dumb to know what is good for you and we are going to control you through incentives, restrictions and general PC attitudes about the world. Conservatism, at its core, is about preserving what is good in society. The problem now is that both sides try to regulate their way to victory. As if some restriction or law is going to make everyone aquiesce and bow to your way of thinking. Dumb on both sides.
This is far too vague to be useful. Something as complex as politics just doesn't work on such a broad level.
I can accept that we have a difference of opinion and that I don't have a right to impose my beliefs but when the government subsidizes it, I feel I have a right to disagree.
What level of subsidy do you believe is currently provided for abortion?
sebster wrote:You can say "I am a liberal, and while gun control is generally connected to liberalism, I don't believe in that" and that's fine.
I don't say that. I hold views that are liberal, and views that are conservative, but identifying myself as one or the other would be silly because it would mean people would try to associate views with me that I don't hold.
sebster wrote: But you can't pretend because you don't like a policy it isn't a liberal thing
Good, because I never said that.
sebster wrote: because you don't get to define what liberalism means.
sebster wrote:
This is far too vague to be useful. Something as complex as politics just doesn't work on such a broad level.
Anti-smoking, gun rights or restrictions, healthy food in schools, healthcare,etc. The idea that we can legislate what is good (good being your personal definition) and that will solve all our problems. The argument that somehow we can legislate our way to nirvana is a fool's quest and whether conservative or liberal, both are trying to do this.
For example healthcare - we have regulated what we will pay for a given procedure - why? because some evil person is going to take advantage of the system so we need the paperwork and now electronic paper trail to verify that everything is justified. Good in theory but how much of the NEED for health insurance is because we have added to the overhead to meet with all the well-intentioned legislation?
Anecdotaly, I think of the price of buying a brand new car. I bought a brand new Mustang in 1988 and drove it off the lot - total cost $7500. Now I know I could have got a Taurus for about 10 K. Look at the cars nowadays, a baseline car will cost you around $20K and a full sized care for the same $2500-$5000 increase. Admittedly my car is safer and in theory more efficent but when I talk $20K to buy an econo car and $25K to buy a full-sized car we are talking a 25% increase in cost. Back in the day when we were talking $5K for the economy car and $10K for the full sized, we are talking %100 price increase. Today I am a lot more likely to go for the extra debt and just get the comfortable big boat. Why is the cost up? Government safety, fuel-efficiency rules have pushed us to the base cost of a vehicle being 400% of the cost. Not saying that the corporations or we are not to blame but certainly the cost of meeting these government regulations has pushed up the cost above inflation.
sebster wrote:
What level of subsidy do you believe is currently provided for abortion?
"The total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates from government sources including state, local and federal governments, increased from $337 million to $350 million in 2009. The new report shows that figure has increased again to $363 million, though it does not specify what portion of the figure was received from each level of government.
Government grants accounted for 33% of Planned Parenthood’s income compared with just 28 percent for private donations. Income from its abortion centers generated another 37 percent.
In 1997, Planned Parenthood did about 160,000 abortions and received approximately $160 million in total taxpayer funding from various levels of government. Both the number of abortions and the amount of money received from government, supposedly for family planning to reduce abortions, has more than doubled since then."
(quoted I am sure from a right-leaning news source but sorry I am not going to write a thesis on this subject.)
AustonT wrote:
There is also a breakdown in one of the polls on abortion that shows that even though a majority of Americans still find abortion morally wrong they also hold the majority opinion it should be legal. I couldn't find an easy link to it. You'll note the political separations in the last poll.
I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. You cannot simply drop in the results of multiple polls and assume that they represent the same sample, or methodological approach. Moreover, the poll you noted, the last one, actually confirms my results if we assume that definitions are consistent.
Sorry, but putting numbers up doesn't necessarily help your cause, particularly given that nothing you posted actually dealt with the Party (ie. the GOP) directly; for which you would need to look at ANES.
why don't you post specific data from more than one source that supports your position. I very clearly defined the group I was referring to, the moderates. Then posted polls that specifically addressed the positions of moderate voters in relation to the issues you stated: gay marriage and abortion. Just because you cherry pick out of context doesn't mean it isn't there.
AustonT wrote:
As far as a "no true Scotsman" I believe you are incorrect. I specifically identified a group, the moderates, ARE the true core of the Republican Party. Thereby identifying a true Republican is a moderate,
And a True Scotsman is a pastiche of William Wallace.
no, it's not. It in fact has nothing at all to do with William Wallace. It refers to a logical fallacy, which I already answered. In fact I have consistently stated that liberal conservatism is the heart of the party, tha the parties core beliefs are liberal conservatism, and that the right wing is has abandoned those core beliefs. None of which are logical fallacies.
AustonT wrote:
I know that he is a political turncoat and has deep liberal roots, he may have pushed himself to where he is through political expediency or a true belief in social conservatism. I believe the former from his proposal to extend education benefits to illegal immigrants.
Your definition of conservatism is so obtuse as to be ridiculous, and useless. You're substituting "What I like." for a legitimate attempt at producing a category.
There is no point in continuing this, though I likely will if you annoy me.
No, I'm applying the term as widely understood and in particular context to the United State. Again:
American Conservatism:
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism." Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party.
Liberalism:
Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.
goarsh, that shore do sound like conservatism in Merika
Its more likely you don't understand what conservatism, especially in this country is.
Liberal Conservatism:
Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative.
The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism. However, the terms "liberal conservative" and "liberal conservatism" are seldom used in the United States, as "liberal" and "conservative" are often viewed as opposite, competing parts of the ideological spectrum.
So far from being obtuse and ridiculous my position of conservatism is well defined and recognized. I haven't even mentioned "what I like" let alone substituted it for publically published open sources I've ripped straight from the interwebz.
Really the entire history of the United States shows that new parties limit political discourse? I think not.
So now I have a response to your entire stance: Prove It.
AustonT wrote:There is no such right, implied or explicit.
Right, America isn't a nation of immigrants, we're actually all of us descended from Native Americans. Oh wait.
Unless you believe that having the capability to do something gives you the right to do it you haven't made a case for the right to immigration yet. I also think you and AustonT should agree on your definition of what 'rights' are before continuing.
Melissia wrote:
AustonT wrote:This is also blatantly untrue. Four of the Ten amendments in the bill of rights are extended to suspected criminals
Much to the chagrin of the conservatives of the country.
First, please use quote tags, the colored text is difficult to read.
AustonT wrote:Why don't you post specific data from more than one source that supports your position. I very clearly defined the group I was referring to, the moderates. Then posted polls that specifically addressed the positions of moderate voters in relation to the issues you stated: gay marriage and abortion. Just because you cherry pick out of context doesn't mean it isn't there.
You posted a set of polls that attempted to support the idea that the core of the Republican Party is moderate, and one of those polls clearly showed that the vast majority of people who identify as Republican identify as conservative (and, generally, as more conservative than their party), and that the majority of conservative Republicans oppose gay marriage, and support making abortion more difficult.
AustonT wrote:
No, it's not. It in fact has nothing at all to do with William Wallace. It refers to a logical fallacy, which I already answered. In fact I have consistently stated that liberal conservatism is the heart of the party, tha the parties core beliefs are liberal conservatism, and that the right wing is has abandoned those core beliefs. None of which are logical fallacies.
You answered it poorly, and my bit about a True Scotsman being a pastiche of William Wallace was a joke based on that very logical fallacy, and your poor attempt at addressing my criticism.
My point is that you're essentially arguing that the membership of the Republican Party does not define the beliefs set forth by the Republican Party, and that the true core of the Republican Party ideology is liberal conservatism, which a no True Scotsman.
It would not be a No True Scotsman if you contended that the Republican Party once had, at the core of its ideology, liberal conservatism, but that it has now changed.
No, it defines a particular set of political positions, we call the people that hold those positions "neoconservatives". If you're going to cite articles, especially wikipedia articles, at least read them to be sure they agree with you.
AustonT wrote:
American Conservatism:
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism." Since the 1950s conservatism in the United States has been chiefly associated with the Republican Party.
I disagree with that completely. American conservatism trades on the tenets of liberalism because the role that philosophy has traditionally played in American politics, note that its generally couched in appeals to constitutional originalism, religious traditionalism, and the historical political state of the Unite States. It is liberal conservatism, as you've noted, and the wikipedia blurb you quoted states. However, if your argument is that American conservatism is essentially classically liberal, then you misused the term in the bit about Perry that elicited my comment about your overly narrow definition of Conservatism. Which, specifically, related to Rick Perry having deep liberal roots in the context of his partisan switch.
AustonT wrote:
So far from being obtuse and ridiculous my position of conservatism is well defined and recognized. I haven't even mentioned "what I like" let alone substituted it for publically published open sources I've ripped straight from the interwebz.
Interestingly, it isn't hard to use a search engine to find other people using definitions that you agree with, academics do it all the time. The trick is that those definitions don't have to be useful, or even accurate simply because they are used.
AustonT wrote:
Really the entire history of the United States shows that new parties limit political discourse? I think not.
In the United States new political parties generally form because they:
A: Fill a gap left by the demise of one of another major party (the Republicans).
B: Attempt to challenge the established parties on a particular issue, or collection of issues, that are not being addressed (Libertarians, Reform Party, Progressives)
C: Are granted the patronage of an established public figure (Reform Party, Progressives).
Regarding A, the original balance of the political system is maintained, with certain variances regarding the demographic of relevant supporters. Regarding B and C, the third party tends to wither and die following a major defeat, and in doing so force the established parties to restrict their message in order to emphasize those issues which set them apart not only from their original challengers, but also their new opponents. This produces a follow on effect that tends to restrict political discourse even after the third party has vanished (most notable in the case of Roosevelt's Progressives, and the Republicans).
The problem would likely get worse if the third party managed to survive, as the opportunity for realistic compromise would fall dramatically as each party's defining issue pool shrank.
But you did; "Also why I don't consider hardline stances for extreme gun control to be liberal..."
I do believe I just did, see the OP.
You tried to, but it was mistaken effort. It was mistaken because you attempted to define the movement by your understanding of the word, rather than seeing the movement as it is and using that to define the word.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DAaddict wrote:Anti-smoking, gun rights or restrictions, healthy food in schools, healthcare,etc. The idea that we can legislate what is good (good being your personal definition) and that will solve all our problems. The argument that somehow we can legislate our way to nirvana is a fool's quest and whether conservative or liberal, both are trying to do this.
Again, far too vague to be useful.
For example healthcare - we have regulated what we will pay for a given procedure - why?
Because the forces of demand and supply break down when we're dealing with a product that the consumer will literally pay everything he owns for (as it is a matter of life and death), and where there is huge information assymetry (because the consumer is not a medical expert but would need to be in order to meaningfully challenge the doctor's recommendation).
That's the thing - "oh both sides are just trying to legislate everything and it's totally unnecessary" sounds awesome when we're sitting around the bar talking nonsense, but when you actually apply it to the real world it becomes clear very quickly that things are very complicated, and such broad brush beliefs just don't fit with many situations.
Good in theory but how much of the NEED for health insurance is because we have added to the overhead to meet with all the well-intentioned legislation?
The US has very high administration costs for health care. They're about 5 times the cost of, say, Australia's. However, we have defined operation costs... Instead, what's driving the higher costs in the US are legal fees - costs from the insured and the insurers fighting in court over coverage, and costs from hospitals having to chase up uninsured people for money they don't have, and a whole nightmare of paperwork that comes from having the money move through too many sets of hands.
Why is the cost up? Government safety, fuel-efficiency rules have pushed us to the base cost of a vehicle being 400% of the cost. Not saying that the corporations or we are not to blame but certainly the cost of meeting these government regulations has pushed up the cost above inflation.
From 1988 to 2011 inflation has driven up prices by 90%. So that $10,000 Taurus would cost $19,000 today. So for an extra $6,000 over the old model you get a bigger car, with a whole range of electronic bits the old car didn't have, and it's safer. Bargain.
"The total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates from government sources including state, local and federal governments, increased from $337 million to $350 million in 2009. The new report shows that figure has increased again to $363 million, though it does not specify what portion of the figure was received from each level of government.
Government grants accounted for 33% of Planned Parenthood’s income compared with just 28 percent for private donations. Income from its abortion centers generated another 37 percent.
And all of that money goes towards medical services and birth control advice, not one of those Federal dollars goes towards abortion.
This is because under Federal law the government cannot fund abortions. It was the Hyde amendment, originally passed in 1976 and maintained every year since then. So you can cheer, because the very situation you want, where women can get abortions if they want to but they won't be using taxpayer dollars to get them exists right now.
Melissia wrote:Which logically follows from my definition. It is not an exception merely because "I don't like it".
But your definition is just what you like about liberalism, it isn't a descriptor for what liberalism really is.
My definition is my attempt to make sense of it all through a logical definition based off of what I know of the overall elements. You can argue I didn't do a good job, at the same time, I hardly think you did either
I feel like you have no idea what a no true Scotsman is. Otherwise you'd be able to phrase it into a no true Scotsman instead of just repeating it over and over again.
I see a lot of unsubstantiated claims and complaints about my references and still see none from you.
Melissia wrote:My definition is my attempt to make sense of it all through a logical definition based off of what I know of the overall elements. You can argue I didn't do a good job, at the same time, I hardly think you did either
It's not about arguing whether or not someone did a good job, it's about how to define something so that that definition is of any use in describing that thing. There is a place for talking about what the underlying core values of a movement ought to be, and what should bind a political bloc together, but that's got nothing to do with describing the various parts that actually make it up.
At which point we aren't arguing whether you did a good job, we're acknowledging you didn't do that job at all, because it never occurred to you that's how the job should be done. Which is fine. None of us walk straight up to the plate and start hitting home runs from our first effort. But really, once we strike out it really doesn't make any sense to ignore people trying to give you tips, and telling them we can agree to disagree on whether you hit or homerun or not.
These labels are just like the labels teens give themselves.
They're pointless. Does anybody truly represent their party? No.
Me? I'm a freakin American who just wanted to deploy and shoot someone in the face because I was in the infantry. Good ole' 82nd, then I got sent to a humanitarian aid mission in Haiti and I was like "Hey, I'm a ground-pounder, not a Red Cross Worker." and the State Dept. was all like "BLAH BLAH BLAH People suffering." So the 101st took AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the slots for Afghanistan, and I was very much angry.
And what that has to do with anything.... I don't know. But my point is no politician represents his/her party well, so what's the point of looking at their party name? Just show me their damn track record.
Melissia wrote:My definition is my attempt to make sense of it all through a logical definition based off of what I know of the overall elements. You can argue I didn't do a good job, at the same time, I hardly think you did either
It's not about arguing whether or not someone did a good job, it's about how to define something so that that definition is of any use in describing that thing. There is a place for talking about what the underlying core values of a movement ought to be, and what should bind a political bloc together, but that's got nothing to do with describing the various parts that actually make it up.
Your "tips" sound more like nonsequiturs than a helping hand... that said, I wasn't talking about a political movement, but a practical, non-contradictory definition of the terms. I'm not even sure there is a proper "liberal" movement right now, more like a conglomeration of other movements conveniently labeled "liberal" simply because they oppose the ones labeled "conservative".
After reading your definitions i don't know where i stand. Maybe i'm a right wing liberal conservative?
I believe in govt intervention on important issues (but only if they have the money to do it) otherwise controlled market forces would be my favoured option. In my country the leftish govts spend the money the right wing govts have saved up. Every left wing govts debt levels in my lifetime make me cry.
In brief , I believe having 0 debt is THE most important part of govt policy , as when the gak hits the fan you can handle cleaning up the gak. Running a country that's debt ridden seems to be asking for BIG problems to me.
But i also believe that for some reason when it comes to politics everyone likes to tar the "other" side with a big brush of bs, thus preventing dialogue and actual discussion- in my mind the major flaw of the two party system.
Melissia wrote:Your "tips" sound more like nonsequiturs than a helping hand... that said, I wasn't talking about a political movement, but a practical, non-contradictory definition of the terms.
The end result of which is to try and form a definition of a thing without giving any reference to how that term is actually used in the real world. The only possible result from such an effort is nonsense.
I'm not even sure there is a proper "liberal" movement right now, more like a conglomeration of other movements conveniently labeled "liberal" simply because they oppose the ones labeled "conservative".
Liberal indicates one supports expanding civil liberties, while conservative indicates the opposite, wishing to restrict civil liberties.
-- Liberals typically advocate abortion rights, removal of the death penalty, allowing homosexual marriage, separation of church and state, rehabilitation as opposed to punishment, etc. On the extreme end, liberals tend towards anarchism or similar ideas.
-- Conservatives typically advocate "pro-life" stances, death penalties, banning homosexual marriage, harsher illegal imigration laws, punishment as opposed to rehabilitation, etc. On the extreme end, conservatives tend towards autocracy or similar ideas.
I like this thread. And I agree with the previous comparisons. I have an issue with these though.
Your definition of liberal sounds more like the traditional liberal, not the current liberal hiding under the "progressive" umbrella.
Your definitions for right-wingers contradict themselves. How can one be at worst both for anarchy AND restrictive civil liberties?
As for what Liberals advocate - how can one person be for both the right to kill an unborn baby, but against the death penalty for the worst element of society? And at worst, Liberals tend towards more government - which means autocracy. (An example I heard recently - a man rapes a woman, impregnating her. Liberals want her to be able to abort the baby, but the rapist can't be executed for his heinous crime.) Liberals push for separation of church and state to do away with religion. (that phrase comes from a personal letter from T. Jefferson, not the constitution.)
Conservatives advocate for life, personal responsibility, free markets, accountability, religion, and at an extreme anarchism.
Regards,
Umm, there is one issue I have with this. In nearly all cases (aside from late term abortions which I do agree are a bit grey in terms of morality), it is not an "unborn baby", but simply two gametes that have joined, and at the most, developed a few more cells. Sperm cells and egg cells will die in the body eventually anyway. Your argument states that a fully developed human being, with their own thoughts and actions, is the same as a few sex cells. As for the death penalty, my thoughts on the matter are more or less neutral.
I wouldn't say that liberals want to do away with religion(though I am nonreligious myself). I know several extremely liberal people who are also very religious. And the separation of church and state is a GOOD thing, as history has shown over and over again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Pirate Party? Do they serve dark rum? Me likes me some rum arrr!
Flying Spaghetti Monster party. Beer and strippers for everyone! (on a pirate ship of course)
Rachel Maddow on the GOP's latest conspiracy theory. Republicans are trying to rally their base by painting health care reform as a way to advance assisted suicide and to literally kill old people. It would be bad enough if this were only coming from fringe groups or right wing web sites, but as Rachel notes, it's coming straight from these politicians' mouths.
The Republicans continue to prove that Bill Maher was right about them with this kind of talk.
Maher: This is because we don't have a left and a right party in this country any more. We have a center right party, and a crazy party. And over the last thirty odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital.
Bill Maher: The Left Moved to the Center; The Right Moved to a Mental Hospital!
You are using RACHEL MADDOW as a legitimate source? Even if she's right I would find it from a different source.
Why yes, regardless of whether you like her or not she hasn't lost a battle yet when it comes to facts. Unlike the Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck types of this world, she uses facts to support her position while they fabricate nonsense to support theirs. Like her or not, she's no liar and her research is carefully done. But it's all about "beliefs" and facts don't matter for the other side, so of course she's vilified. Honesty is not a virtue from the opposition, only winning. It's why when a Republican is indicted for a crime Fox News puts a big "D" next to their name when they report the story (I've seen that one at least twice), they'll make up any crazy thing to win. Death Panels was the lie of the year a couple years ago (see http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/whoppers-of-2009/).
Why yes, regardless of whether you like him/her or not The Pundit I Happen to Agree With hasn't lost a battle yet when it comes to facts. Unlike the Pundit I Happen to Disagree With and Another Pundit I Happen to Disagree With types of this world, The Pundit I Happen to Agree With uses facts to support his/her position while they fabricate nonsense to support theirs.
I decided to make a handy template for the next time this subject comes up.
I mean, realistically, the pundits should be treated like any other source. You listen to them, check out what they say, and then decide if you believe what was said.
If we think critically about what the people that we go to to have our own views repeated back to us say we might have to actually consider that another viewpoint could have some validity, dogma.
You are using RACHEL MADDOW as a legitimate source? Even if she's right I would find it from a different source.
Why yes, regardless of whether you like her or not she hasn't lost a battle yet when it comes to facts. Unlike the Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck types of this world, she uses facts to support her position while they fabricate nonsense to support theirs. Like her or not, she's no liar and her research is carefully done. But it's all about "beliefs" and facts don't matter for the other side, so of course she's vilified. Honesty is not a virtue from the opposition, only winning. It's why when a Republican is indicted for a crime Fox News puts a big "D" next to their name when they report the story (I've seen that one at least twice), they'll make up any crazy thing to win. Death Panels was the lie of the year a couple years ago (see http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/whoppers-of-2009/).
I love that you used factcheck while holding up Maddow as a paragon of journalistic integrity. Her creative editing talents and bold faced lies rival Sean Hannity.
It’s not true that Gov. Scott Walker’s tax cuts are the cause of Wisconsin’s current budget deficit — a false claim widely spread by MSNBC‘s Rachel Maddow and repeated in numerous e-mails to us since we wrote about the state’s budget problems earlier this week. In fact, the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates the tax cuts won’t add a penny to the current year’s $137 million deficit.
Maddow's criticism in Thursday's show used artful editing and told an incomplete story. At issue is whether we checked the right factual claim. We examined her statement that Wisconsin "is on track to have a budget surplus this year." But she maintains that in the same segment, she made clear that she knew the state had a shortfall...
It’s pretty reckless to make such a claim on national television when a few minutes with Google would prove it false.
It gets worse. Maddow seems to have known the claim was false when she said it
Monster Rain wrote:
Why yes, regardless of whether you like him/her or not The Pundit I Happen to Agree With hasn't lost a battle yet when it comes to facts. Unlike the Pundit I Happen to Disagree With and Another Pundit I Happen to Disagree With types of this world, The Pundit I Happen to Agree With uses facts to support his/her position while Pundit I Happen to Disagree With fabricate nonsense to support theirs.
I decided to make a handy template for the next time this subject comes up.
AustonT wrote:
I love that you used factcheck while holding up Maddow as a paragon of journalistic integrity.
I didn't realize that's what citing someone meant, maybe I should notify all the people I've cited in disagreement that I was really holding them up as "..paragons of journalistic integrity."
Strangely enough, one person can say stupid, or manipulative things, and insightful thing while remaining the same person.
AustonT wrote:
+1 (I also modified it slightly...you missed one)
Rachel Maddow on the GOP's latest conspiracy theory. Republicans are trying to rally their base by painting health care reform as a way to advance assisted suicide and to literally kill old people. It would be bad enough if this were only coming from fringe groups or right wing web sites, but as Rachel notes, it's coming straight from these politicians' mouths.
The Republicans continue to prove that Bill Maher was right about them with this kind of talk.
Maher: This is because we don't have a left and a right party in this country any more. We have a center right party, and a crazy party. And over the last thirty odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital.
Bill Maher: The Left Moved to the Center; The Right Moved to a Mental Hospital!
Stop with the Maher already. Its like watching explosive diarhea. I may have to counterspam with you might be a redneck bits.
Yeah seriously, stop spamming with tangential-at-best videos... you post the same boring, pointless content in three separate threads over and over again without really contributing to the threads...
Melissia wrote:Right, America isn't a nation of immigrants, we're actually all of us descended from Native Americans. Oh wait.
This is an intellectually lazy comment constantly thrown into the mix by people that want as many illegal aliens to invade the U.S. as possible, because more than likely they will join unions and vote for democrats.
Using this logic, it can be said that every nation is a nation of immigrants, since our ancestors originated in NE Africa and spread across the globe. If it means everything, it means nothing.
The U.S. was a nation of immigrants, but that hasn't been true for about a hundred years. Now it's perfectly right and reasonable to limit the number of foreigners that come here. And insist that they do it legally.
Regards,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Phanatik wrote:And at worst, Liberals tend towards more government - which means autocracy.
No, it doesn't. Autocracy is a word with a specific meaning, and it's one you need to learn if you're going to try and talk about politics.
It would make sense to say liberalism at its worst would mean authoritarianism.
I appreciate your need to follow me around trying to help me through the day with the hard stuff, like definitions. But really, don't bother.
An autocracy is a form of government in which one person is the supreme power within the state.
Autocracy and totalitarianism are related concepts. Autocracy is defined by one individual having unlimited legislative and executive power, while totalitarianism extends to regulating every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarianism does not imply a single ruler, but extends to include absolute rule by any faction or class of elites who recognize no limit to their authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy All of these types of government reside on the extreme left. An extreme right position would tend towards little or no government, or anarchy.
Liberals do tend towards more government. And liberalism is the gateway drug to the extreme left. It might help you to notice that I said "at worst..."
I find very interesting to read this topic on political theory confronted with the reality of US political scene.
Way for a foreigner to learn and compare with the same discussion here, in France :]
DickBandit wrote:These labels are just like the labels teens give themselves.
They're pointless. Does anybody truly represent their party? No.
To Me hes got a point. You can lean more to one side or the other. Like me I'm for federal government Handling the implementation of the constitution through out America and American Interest through out the world. While the States Handle there governance to the best way practical for them with out interfering with the constitution. I believe that we need a stricter legal system to deter would be criminals. and on abortions legal only in certain cases of rape,high chance of miss carriage or chance of killing the mother at birth,but otherwise up to the state to decide. While on the welfare and other government hand outs. strict measures of interviews and monthly check ups to deem it necessary for them to live to quot Ben Franklin" the best way to eliminate poverty sis to make the impoverish uncomfortable in there poverty".
So to conclude I have ideals that lean on both side but farther to the right than left
p.s.
i love peoples opinions on all mater of subjects so if you want too discuss with me where you feel i might be disinclined don't worry about me getting all trolly on you I would enjoy the conversation.
Phanatik wrote:I appreciate your need to follow me around trying to help me through the day with the hard stuff, like definitions. But really, don't bother.
An autocracy is a form of government in which one person is the supreme power within the state.
Autocracy and totalitarianism are related concepts. Autocracy is defined by one individual having unlimited legislative and executive power, while totalitarianism extends to regulating every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarianism does not imply a single ruler, but extends to include absolute rule by any faction or class of elites who recognize no limit to their authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy All of these types of government reside on the extreme left. An extreme right position would tend towards little or no government, or anarchy.
Liberals do tend towards more government. And liberalism is the gateway drug to the extreme left. It might help you to notice that I said "at worst..."
Ah, so the problem isn't that you don't know what words mean, it's that you don't care how politics works.
Your claim that left wing politics increasingly leads to one person is non-sensical. That tendency isn't inherent to either side of politics, has occurred multiple times in both right and left wing governments, and is a product of the weakness of democratic institutions, not the policy set of a left or right wing government.
On the other hand, the word I suggested you use, authoritarianism, makes sense. It would involve the state assuming greater and greater influence over the lives of citizens, and control of that power falling into the hands of a relatively small number of people. It's a possible end step for years of unchecked leftwing politics.
Liberals do tend towards more government. And liberalism is the gateway drug to the extreme left.
While I agree that the "American left" aka. "liberals" are (slightly) more prone to authoritarianism than the "American right," aka. "conservatives" this thread is about definitions...
Originally "liberal" meant something like "libertarian" means today. It has always been an important part of the American psychology.
Since 1776, though, people have said the word about 15 trillion times, and used it in the context of screeching at one another, and now it's joined the lofty ranks of the "meaningless words." Words that have been overused, misused and used in anger so many times that they stop meaning much of anything except *STRONG EMOTION.*
For example "racist" is a meaningless word. It basically just means that the person using it is in an argument, is angry at the other person, and lacks the sophistication/interest/wherewithal to use a more useful term.
It's also worth noting, given the last several posts, that in addition to "meaningless words" there are also "meaningless people." Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity all fall into that cateogry.
If, by some lucky twist of fate, they happen to provide illuminating and factual information, then cite that. Don't wield these media personalities like some sort of nebulous "truth mallet."
"Rachel Maddow is on MY TEAM, and she wins cause she has FACTS, so by extension I WIN."
AustonT wrote:No, then the voting pool gets smaller and only the really opinionated people are represented.
Yep. The problem in US politics of having an extremely narrow set of interests served would be made worse by a reducing vote base.
I think all populations have a narrow set of political interests, they change over time but they almost never multiply. It's certainly not unique to America. The issues currency galvanizing our politics will probably not be issues 50 years from now.
Or I'll be the Prime Minister of North America and it won't matter.
Phanatik wrote:
All of these types of government reside on the extreme left. An extreme right position would tend towards little or no government, or anarchy.
AustonT wrote:I think all populations have a narrow set of political interests, they change over time but they almost never multiply. It's certainly not unique to America. The issues currency galvanizing our politics will probably not be issues 50 years from now.
Or I'll be the Prime Minister of North America and it won't matter.
Sure, there's always super important issues of the day, that over time get resolved or simply stop being of interest, and end up getting replaced by some other super important issue of the day.
But in US politics there's another phenomenon, that I meant by 'narrow political interests' - there's folk who'll vote in the next election purely on the issue of abortion (either way). Or gun control (either way). Or the continuance of corn subsidies (pretty much just one way). The more people with general interest in politics lose interest and drop out, the more US politics will be decided by how candidates cater to the narrow interests of those voters. In the end, you don't get general policy that aims for the overall good, but balkanisation of politics, which each interest group getting its own little piece, in accordance with how many voters is can drum up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:A man named Pinochet would like a word with you.
I've seen them call Hitler leftwing. It seems only a matter of time until they pretend the same is true of Pinochet as well.
rockerbikie wrote:I am a conservative, Left winged Liberalist don't care about other. The thing they care about is making money in "Humane" exploitation.
Funny, i don't think you are "Evil" just because you're a conserative.
I tend to let people's actions or expressed intentions do that for me.
I've worked with a nice fellow for 13+ years that is a staunch conservative,
listens to Limbaugh, the whole 9 yards. we get along great. just because we
view things differently, doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree and get on
with really important issuess (ie. work in this case).
That's the problem, IMHO, with all these labels. we need to focus on what
we share and have in common, not get stuck on what we don't have in common.
we all bleed red when we're cut.
