Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.


Your thoughts?

Melissia wrote: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.

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,

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.

It's also worth mentioning that this country was founded by Liberals.

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?

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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:

Left-win/liberal: socialists, communists, capitalists, authoritarians, populists

Right-wing/conservative: socialists, capitalists, authoritarians, populists, theocrats

You'll note how little variation there really is.

I find most libertarians are wayyyyy beyond college age.

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."

Just my two cents.

Liberals have no problems telling you what to do in private too. Try smoking a cigarette in Berkely (as compared to a joint of course).

PC laws
Mandated blah blah
Mandated additional in equipment like cars.


Both sides just had different nuggets they like.

AustonT wrote:It's also worth mentioning that this country was founded by Liberals.

Why is that worth mentioning?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

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!

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

mattyrm wrote:

AustonT wrote:It's also worth mentioning that this country was founded by Liberals.

Why is that worth mentioning?

because even the furthest right politician in America is Liberal and distinctly left of center.

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.

mattyrm wrote:

d-usa wrote:

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".

Pirate Party? Do they serve dark rum? Me likes me some rum arrr!

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".

There should be more of you.

I shall have to check out this Cachaca. I'm usualy a rum and water fan. Would it work with water an a tip of lemon juice?

Frazzled wrote:I shall have to check out this Cachaca. I'm usualy a rum and water fan. Would it work with water an a tip of lemon juice?

You would probably need a touch of sugar as well.

For reference, its used mostly in caipirinhas

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.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I shall have to check out this Cachaca. I'm usualy a rum and water fan. Would it work with water an a tip of lemon juice?

You would probably need a touch of sugar as well.

For reference, its used mostly in caipirinhas

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.