Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[Coyote]

Let's be honest, it's not "liberalism vs conservatism", it's "socialism vs capitalism". "Liberal" was always a code word for "socialist".

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

Liberals veer towards socialism as a means to address economic inequalities and injustices, not for personal enrichment. What happens though, is that system that looks good on paper, or maybe works in small situations lends itself to abuse in practice. Capitalism is no different where "abuse" is defined as sweatshops and the underpaid labor and abusive practices lead to the enrichment of a very few.

But which is worse when it comes to liberty, equality, and justice:

A government with the power to force people to accept and enforce its definition of such things? (And conversely given power to change that defintiion or take away liberty, equality, and justice?) This of course is always presented as for the general good.

Or unscrupulous people who operate sweat shops or underpay their people, but the people have a choice in whether they work for such employers or not; i.e. the people decide how it is going to be?

IMO it is this is the basic difference in point of view that does define modern day liberalism and conservatism.

The way I see it, is that there must be some form of "general good" in order to have equality and justice and real liberty.

Greg Brown has a song I love, and part of the lyrics go: "ain't no road a good road until it's free to everyone,
we're walkin' daddy father holy ghost & son"

A government can have the power. Or private entities can have that power. But regardless of who it is - there will always be stronger and more ruthless people who have power over weaker people. What is the best way of ensuring that the most people can have some degree of liberty, equality and justice?

To use the sweatshop meme as an example - DO people really have a choice?
If there are no other jobs around?
If it's a company town?
If there are dependents to think of?
If the only other jobs are even worse?
If the choice is between starvation and life?

In situations like that, "choice" becomes a farce and liberty, equality and justice belong to those who can pay for it. In many ways it still does - which criminals get off, which criminals get the death penalty?

The government provides a valuable and necessary counterbalance to the excesses of the "individual" by providing for the "general good".

Conservatism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects choices of those with enough power to be heard.

Liberalism seeks to give everyone the right to choose - even if it means some of those choices might be limited so those with weaker voices will be heard.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's be honest, it's not "liberalism vs conservatism", it's "socialism vs capitalism". "Liberal" was always a code word for "socialist".

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

Liberals veer towards socialism as a means to address economic inequalities and injustices, not for personal enrichment. What happens though, is that system that looks good on paper, or maybe works in small situations lends itself to abuse in practice. Capitalism is no different where "abuse" is defined as sweatshops and the underpaid labor and abusive practices lead to the enrichment of a very few.

But which is worse when it comes to liberty, equality, and justice:

A government with the power to force people to accept and enforce its definition of such things? (And conversely given power to change that defintiion or take away liberty, equality, and justice?) This of course is always presented as for the general good.

Or unscrupulous people who operate sweat shops or underpay their people, but the people have a choice in whether they work for such employers or not; i.e. the people decide how it is going to be?

IMO it is this is the basic difference in point of view that does define modern day liberalism and conservatism.

The way I see it, is that there must be some form of "general good" in order to have equality and justice and real liberty.

Greg Brown has a song I love, and part of the lyrics go: "ain't no road a good road until it's free to everyone,
we're walkin' daddy father holy ghost & son"

A government can have the power. Or private entities can have that power. But regardless of who it is - there will always be stronger and more ruthless people who have power over weaker people. What is the best way of ensuring that the most people can have some degree of liberty, equality and justice?

To use the sweatshop meme as an example - DO people really have a choice?
If there are no other jobs around?
If it's a company town?
If there are dependents to think of?
If the only other jobs are even worse?
If the choice is between starvation and life?

In situations like that, "choice" becomes a farce and liberty, equality and justice belong to those who can pay for it. In many ways it still does - which criminals get off, which criminals get the death penalty?

The government provides a valuable and necessary counterbalance to the excesses of the "individual" by providing for the "general good".

Conservatism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects choices of those with enough power to be heard.

Liberalism seeks to give everyone the right to choose - even if it means some of those choices might be limited so those with weaker voices will be heard.

Lots of food for thought there. But it has been a really busy evening and my pillow is now calling. I'll be more coherent in the morning, so hold the thought, and I'll be back.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

Liberals veer towards socialism as a means to address economic inequalities and injustices, not for personal enrichment. What happens though, is that system that looks good on paper, or maybe works in small situations lends itself to abuse in practice. Capitalism is no different where "abuse" is defined as sweatshops and the underpaid labor and abusive practices lead to the enrichment of a very few.

But which is worse when it comes to liberty, equality, and justice:

A government with the power to force people to accept and enforce its definition of such things? (And conversely given power to change that defintiion or take away liberty, equality, and justice?) This of course is always presented as for the general good.

Or unscrupulous people who operate sweat shops or underpay their people, but the people have a choice in whether they work for such employers or not; i.e. the people decide how it is going to be?

IMO it is this is the basic difference in point of view that does define modern day liberalism and conservatism.

The way I see it, is that there must be some form of "general good" in order to have equality and justice and real liberty.

Greg Brown has a song I love, and part of the lyrics go: "ain't no road a good road until it's free to everyone,
we're walkin' daddy father holy ghost & son"

A government can have the power. Or private entities can have that power. But regardless of who it is - there will always be stronger and more ruthless people who have power over weaker people. What is the best way of ensuring that the most people can have some degree of liberty, equality and justice?

To use the sweatshop meme as an example - DO people really have a choice?
If there are no other jobs around?
If it's a company town?
If there are dependents to think of?
If the only other jobs are even worse?
If the choice is between starvation and life?

In situations like that, "choice" becomes a farce and liberty, equality and justice belong to those who can pay for it. In many ways it still does - which criminals get off, which criminals get the death penalty?

The government provides a valuable and necessary counterbalance to the excesses of the "individual" by providing for the "general good".

Conservatism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects choices of those with enough power to be heard.

Liberalism seeks to give everyone the right to choose - even if it means some of those choices might be limited so those with weaker voices will be heard.

Lots of food for thought there. But it has been a really busy evening and my pillow is now calling. I'll be more coherent in the morning, so hold the thought, and I'll be back.

Okay. I've given it some thought. This is going to be pretty long winded, but will be the last one so long winded hopefully. But I want to get the whole concept out there.

Again I will be defining conservatism and liberalism as I believe they are most commonly understood and used in modern day American vernacular (minus the pejorative definitions some seem to insist attaching to them.)

Your comment, which I believe is sincere, was phrased as "Conservatism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects choices of those with enough power to be heard."

Pejoratively it could conversely be said that "Liberalism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects those the liberals want to be protected and would deny that choice to everybody else."

Of course both conservatives and liberals will object to such definitions being applied to them. And there are of course wrong headed or unscrupulous people in both camps who will pervert the pure intent of both ideologies by pointing to anecdotal evidence. People who WANT to be pejorative will of course zero in on those anecdotal illustrations and hold them up as examples of all that liberals or conservatives are. And when that happens all constructive debate comes to a screeching halt.

So let's look at it without prejudice and try to get to the purest reality. The following is my understanding and belief only though I think there are others who share it.

Liberalism champions the cause of those they see as having less power and seeks to correct what liberalism considers unjust imbalances in personal prosperity. And it favors a central government given power to enforce those concepts as the liberal sees them.

So, just for purposes of illustration, with liberalism it is just and right that the greedy employer running the sweat shop and under paying his employees be brought to task by the government and forced to do right by the people who work for him. But in so doing the government has to create laws, rules, regulations, policy etc. that affects everybody--the greedy employer and the benevolent employer alike. And because that takes away the individual's ability to do the right thing in a given situation and/or use his/her resources as he/she sees fit, that will invariably have unintended negative consequences.

Conservatism on the other hand leaves it up to the people themselves to govern themselves. With unalienable rights secured--i.e. the strictly limited government is given power to prohibit others from interfering with them--the conservative promotes a society that is satisfying and beneficial to those who form the social contract. And promotes the liberty for such society to be who and what it is. Conservatism believes people will get it wrong many times, but because the huge majority of people individually yearn for peace, justice, prosperity, happiness, they will learn from their mistakes and will almost always learn how to get it more right. Crummy employers will run crummy businesses. But it is their choice--the choice of people living under liberty--that will remedy that. No one-size-fits all government mandate can do it.

So in the case of the greedy bad employer, so be it. He should have the right to run his business as he sees fit. But he won't be able to keep employees who find better jobs with better bosses. They will have the liberty to go elsewhere as fast as they can. He won't be able to produce the quality or effectiveness of the employer who has a contented work force who take pride in their work. And his business will invariably suffer as a consequence of that. And sooner or later, he will have to clean up his act or he won't be able to compete.

The only involvement the government should have in that is regulation that would prevent the employer from exposing the people to hazardous substances or other dangers of which they would not reasonably be aware or creating unreasonable hazards for the employees without their knowledge.

The bottom line: Liberalism would impose its values on everybody and, if it screws up or gets it wrong, it screws up everybody.

Conservatism can hold the same values but leaves it up to the states, local communities, and individuals to create an environment that reflects those values. If it gets it wrong it only screws it up for the people who adopted them and not everybody else.

Under liberalism, power is given government to do good. But power given to a government to do good is a government that also holds power to do bad. Conservatism does not see that as a reasonable risk.

 

[Foxfyre]

And as for those who don't have any choice other than working for the bad employer. . .that just doesn't wash in a truly free society. Everybody has a choice to do what they must, short of violating the rights of others, to equip themselves to live the kind of life they want for themselves. Probably many will not achieve all they wish they could, and some will make choices they would have preferred not to make, and some will choose very unwisely, but whether or not to work for a bad employer is a choice that free people, looking to their own self interests, will choose to make.

There is no unalienable right to a great job with a great employer. There is only an unalienable right to want that and to go after it as best we can. A government given power to dictate what people can do with their own lawfully and/or ethically acquired property is a government that can do anything it wants to anybody. That is not conducive to choice, liberty, or quality of life.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The fallacy of extreme conservatives assuming that the government is always going to do wrong because it "takes away choices" for bad employers to exploit people or natural resources or whatever they want to do to make a quick buck is a ridiculous and utterly baseless assumption.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that without regulations corporations exploit whatever they can. You only have to go back to 2008 to see the massive damage that was inflicted on hardworking Americans when the Wall Street Casino Bosses had managed to have Glass-Steagall deregulated. The lesson of history is that without regulations corporations will exploit everything and anything. Only a fool would trust a corporation to do the "right thing" because the whole purpose of corporations is to make money. There is nothing about corporations that motivates them to do the "right thing".

We the People formed a government OF the people and FOR the people for the express purpose of the WELFARE of the people. That is one of the stated goals in the preamble to the Constitution and it is encoded within the Constitution.

The welfare of the people means regulating corporations because they cannot be trusted to do the "right thing". We have more than enough historical examples proving that to be true.

So that just leaves the extreme conservative canard that once it is given the power the government will then "dictate ... anything it wants to anybody".

And yes, that is a canard because it blindly ignores the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't trust the government to do the "right thing" either so they took the sensible precaution of building in "checks and balances". This is liberal thinking at it's finest. They looked at the problem from all sides and came up with a COMPROMISE solution that dealt with all of the potential arguments anyone could come up with.

The Founding Fathers understood that the purpose of the government was to protect the people and ensure their welfare from all potential threats. They set up a 3 tiered co-equal form of government so that the powers in each branch would be balanced against the others. They built in a means to update the Constitution so that anything they had missed could subsequently be added.

And that is what we have today. A triumph of liberal thinking in action. A Constitution that has expanded step by step to extend the rights of We the People to minorities, women and gays. A government that works FOR the people by the representatives elected BY the people. Yes, there are flaws in it today just as there have always been because nothing is ever perfect.

But it is this magnificent monument to liberalism that the extreme conservatives want to demolish and replace with a libertarian utopia where the only "rights" anyone has are those that they are willing to starve to death for. They want "freedom" to mean the "right" to work for a pittance or go hungry because to extreme conservatives the "government" of We the People is the "dictator" and the "enemy" that is taking away their "freedoms" and their "choices".

One disclaimer that I want to add here. I make a clear distinction between genuine conservatives as per the OP and extreme conservatives AKA Libertarians. Genuine conservatives are a valuable part of We the People and OUR government OF the people and FOR the people. They are part of the "checks and balances" to make sure that We the People govern ourselves in a responsible manner that is best for ALL of the people.

 

[Pogo]

The fallacy of extreme conservatives assuming that the government is always going to do wrong because it "takes away choices" for bad employers to exploit people or natural resources or whatever they want to do to make a quick buck is a ridiculous and utterly baseless assumption.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that without regulations corporations exploit whatever they can. You only have to go back to 2008 to see the massive damage that was inflicted on hardworking Americans when the Wall Street Casino Bosses had managed to have Glass-Steagall deregulated. The lesson of history is that without regulations corporations will exploit everything and anything. Only a fool would trust a corporation to do the "right thing" because the whole purpose of corporations is to make money. There is nothing about corporations that motivates them to do the "right thing".

We the People formed a government OF the people and FOR the people for the express purpose of the WELFARE of the people. That is one of the stated goals in the preamble to the Constitution and it is encoded within the Constitution.

The welfare of the people means regulating corporations because they cannot be trusted to do the "right thing". We have more than enough historical examples proving that to be true.

...

It seems worth endless reminderance that corporations exist by the permission of, and at the pleasure of, We the People. I continually get the impression there are those who walk among us thinking it's the other way 'round.

 

[Disir]

The questions for this topic are:

What is liberalism and conservatism to you politically, socially, religiously?
Can they both co-exist together and produce a balanced society?

Ok. I am coming in late. This is good because my schedule might not allow me to keep up.


Conservatives do not like change and, definitely, do not like rapid change. Unless, of course, you can create a valid argument. That is key. Justice John Paul Stevens is called the last conservative and he is often mistakenly called liberal. His dissenting opinion in Citizens United v FEC screams conservative:
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM N

He says (in no particular order)-you broke a rule that places an element of unnecessary risk, you had options worth exploring, you have no evidence to support your decisions and have moved to exceeding the authority of the courts, I'm sorry "But, I don't like it" is not a legitimate argument and have cited a case that is a completely different situation.

Liberals are not adverse to change, are less inclined to go along with the status quo, are willing to disagree with other liberals, do their own research and recognize the difference between objective and subjective. Justice Elena Kagan's dissenting opinion in Yates v the United States screams liberal:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf

She says (in no particular order)-It's a crappy law and I don't like it but rewriting it exceeds my authority, the phrase in question "tangible object" means exactly what it says it means, it covers any physical object that is tampered with-evidence to obstruct justice, it is used in courts, it is used in state criminal codes nationwide, and federal criminal codes, and you don't need a super-duper special decoder ring to figure this one out. (I could have used a different one but the Dr. Seuss reference was awesome.)

You know Kagan goes hunting with Scalia, right?

Conservatism and liberalism are luxuries when it comes to conflict resolution, jobs, and accomplishing goals and rights. The rhetoric is meaningless. It's the finer points that matter.

We don't live like this.

We damn sure don't work like this.

It is completely ALIEN to us.

Our real differences are minimal. It isn't what we say. It is what we do. (hic)

 

[Coyote]

The questions for this topic are:

What is liberalism and conservatism to you politically, socially, religiously?
Can they both co-exist together and produce a balanced society?

Ok. I am coming in late. This is good because my schedule might not allow me to keep up.


Conservatives do not like change and, definitely, do not like rapid change. Unless, of course, you can create a valid argument. That is key. Justice John Paul Stevens is called the last conservative and he is often mistakenly called liberal. His dissenting opinion in Citizens United v FEC screams conservative:
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM N

He says (in no particular order)-you broke a rule that places an element of unnecessary risk, you had options worth exploring, you have no evidence to support your decisions and have moved to exceeding the authority of the courts, I'm sorry "But, I don't like it" is not a legitimate argument and have cited a case that is a completely different situation.

Liberals are not adverse to change, are less inclined to go along with the status quo, are willing to disagree with other liberals, do their own research and recognize the difference between objective and subjective. Justice Elena Kagan's dissenting opinion in Yates v the United States screams liberal:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf

She says (in no particular order)-It's a crappy law and I don't like it but rewriting it exceeds my authority, the phrase in question "tangible object" means exactly what it says it means, it covers any physical object that is tampered with-evidence to obstruct justice, it is used in courts, it is used in state criminal codes nationwide, and federal criminal codes, and you don't need a super-duper special decoder ring to figure this one out. (I could have used a different one but the Dr. Seuss reference was awesome.)

You know Kagan goes hunting with Scalia, right?

Conservatism and liberalism are luxuries when it comes to conflict resolution, jobs, and accomplishing goals and rights. The rhetoric is meaningless. It's the finer points that matter.

We don't live like this.

We damn sure don't work like this.

It is completely ALIEN to us.

Our real differences are minimal. It isn't what we say. It is what we do. (hic)

Excellent post and food for thought - thank you Dis

 

[Coyote]

Great post Foxie - and I agree with parts and disagree with parts. I'm going to answer in sections

Okay. I've given it some thought. This is going to be pretty long winded, but will be the last one so long winded hopefully. But I want to get the whole concept out there.

Again I will be defining conservatism and liberalism as I believe they are most commonly understood and used in modern day American vernacular (minus the pejorative definitions some seem to insist attaching to them.)

Your comment, which I believe is sincere, was phrased as "Conservatism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects choices of those with enough power to be heard."

Pejoratively it could conversely be said that "Liberalism believes it protects people's right to "choice" - but it really only protects those the liberals want to be protected and would deny that choice to everybody else."

I actually agree. These two comments are what I see as the negative sides of each ideology and why balance is ultimately important (though each of us see's the balancing point in a different area)

Of course both conservatives and liberals will object to such definitions being applied to them. And there are of course wrong headed or unscrupulous people in both camps who will pervert the pure intent of both ideologies by pointing to anecdotal evidence. People who WANT to be pejorative will of course zero in on those anecdotal illustrations and hold them up as examples of all that liberals or conservatives are. And when that happens all constructive debate comes to a screeching halt.

So let's look at it without prejudice and try to get to the purest reality. The following is my understanding and belief only though I think there are others who share it.

Liberalism champions the cause of those they see as having less power and seeks to correct what liberalism considers unjust imbalances in personal prosperity. And it favors a central government given power to enforce those concepts as the liberal sees them.

Agree, but it's not just about "personal prosperity" - it's about injustice and inequality in a much broader sense.

For example:
a justice system that incarcerates black men at a much higher rate than white men (for the same crimes) and imposes the death penalty at a much higher rate
a system that disproportionately affects poor people's neighborhoods in regards to eminent domain, pollution and toxic dumps, and environmental degradation
a justice system that allows a rich man to get off when a poor man gets the death penalty
attempts to pervert the voting system to discourage or actively prevent certain groups from voting (not talking illegals)

To me, as a liberal - it's not just equality of personal prosperity but equality of opportunity and of voice. Everyone starts with a level playing field and then it's up to them to make the best of their choices.

So, just for purposes of illustration, with liberalism it is just and right that the greedy employer running the sweat shop and under paying his employees be brought to task by the government and forced to do right by the people who work for him. But in so doing the government has to create laws, rules, regulations, policy etc. that affects everybody--the greedy employer and the benevolent employer alike. And because that takes away the individual's ability to do the right thing in a given situation and/or use his/her resources as he/she sees fit, that will invariably have unintended negative consequences.

If we did not have laws imposing some regulation, then we would be entirely dependent on the good will of human nature. I think conservatives - when it comes to the market - have far more faith in human nature than liberals do. I can't speak for all liberals so I'll speak for me as a liberal. The problem I have here is that people's lives and well being are at the whim of other people's "choices".

If people "choose" to do the right thing, everything is great - but history is rife with examples that show people often don't, particularly when profit is concerned.

Where conservatism is about individual choice, liberalism is about individual dignity. Creation of economic systems after the Great Depression, that protected people's pensions and gave elderly people independence and dignity, that they did not have to be dependent on charity if the company they worked for changed their minds and killed their pensions. Or, dismantling of systems that enforced discrimmination of people based on what they were not how they acted.

Conservatism on the other hand leaves it up to the people themselves to govern themselves. With unalienable rights secured--i.e. the strictly limited government is given power to prohibit others from interfering with them--the conservative promotes a society that is satisfying and beneficial to those who form the social contract. And promotes the liberty for such society to be who and what it is. Conservatism believes people will get it wrong many times, but because the huge majority of people individually yearn for peace, justice, prosperity, happiness, they will learn from their mistakes and will almost always learn how to get it more right. Crummy employers will run crummy businesses. But it is their choice--the choice of people living under liberty--that will remedy that. No one-size-fits all government mandate can do it.

Where liberals fundamentally disagree with conservatives is here - the trust that human nature will ultimately prove benificent and history has born that out. Sure, many do choose to do good, but how many lives are conservatives willing to relegate to the garbage heap in the process? I'll add as well, that the larger and more centralized a conglomerate gets, the further it's management is removed from the effects it has on it's workers, it's neighborhoods and it's environment.

Why do so many lawsuits end up in settlements? One reason, is that often it's cheaper to settle then it is to change or pull a product. This is particularly true in the pharma industries and the mining industries. There is a price set on individual human life and as long as that price is affordable, the loss of life is acceptable. To liberal, no loss of life is acceptable when it is preventable.

So in the case of the greedy bad employer, so be it. He should have the right to run his business as he sees fit. But he won't be able to keep employees who find better jobs with better bosses. They will have the liberty to go elsewhere as fast as they can. He won't be able to produce the quality or effectiveness of the employer who has a contented work force who take pride in their work. And his business will invariably suffer as a consequence of that. And sooner or later, he will have to clean up his act or he won't be able to compete.

But again, I argue does that jive with reality and I would say look at history before there was much government regulation for an answer. You had company towns where there is only one employer or monopolies that fixed wages and conditions. For modern examples look at the mining industry - many wrack up violations or simply pay the fines rather than change the conditions. Enforcement is poor.

Historically - we had an absolute free market yet job conditions were atrocious for many, and a good many people lived, worked and died in abject poverty. You only have choice when there is something to choose besides unemployment.

The only involvement the government should have in that is regulation that would prevent the employer from exposing the people to hazardous substances or other dangers of which they would not reasonably be aware or creating unreasonable hazards for the employees without their knowledge.

As a liberal I go beyond that. The minimum wage has saved a lot of people, as has government regulation in pension plans etc. As well, government regulation in how industry affects the environment and discrimmination. My aunt is a chemist with a phd - she was educated at a time when many women were discriminated against in the sciences still - she had to fight to get into the PHD program and not because she wasn't qualified.

The bottom line: Liberalism would impose its values on everybody and, if it screws up or gets it wrong, it screws up everybody.

Conservatism can hold the same values but leaves it up to the states, local communities, and individuals to create an environment that reflects those values. If it gets it wrong it only screws it up for the people who adopted them and not everybody else.

Under liberalism, power is given government to do good. But power given to a government to do good is a government that also holds power to do bad. Conservatism does not see that as a reasonable risk.

Bottom line:

Conservatism allows for the creation of some of the highest highs and most wretched lows.
Liberalism moderates those lows, and allows the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us an equal voice and basic dignity that would otherwise be denied.

Conservatism believes in the goodness of individual human nature and the right of everyone to succeed or fail on their own merits and it's willing to accept the human cost in the process.
Liberalism distrusts the inate goodness of individual human nature and believes people must be encouraged to make the right choices through a system of carrots and sticks, it is unwilling to accept the human cost of other's choices.

Conservatism believes that everyone has the same opportunities.
Liberalism believes that while everyone has the same opportunities, they do not start off on a level playing field.

But there always contradictions and extremes in those philosophies.

On the side of liberals, it's the abortion issue and, as a woman with an almost fanatical fear that someone else might try to control my independence and choices - I'm on the fence. The unborn child is weak and vulnerable. As a liberal - we should speak for it's voice.

On the side of conservatives - the right of individual choice and consequences says we should speak for the right of the woman to choose.

And anyone who speaks for life should stand up for both the right of the unborn child to live and an end to capital punishment.

 

[Foxfyre]

(Excerpted from the very well argued background for this conclusion

Bottom line:

Conservatism allows for the creation of some of the highest highs and most wretched lows.
Liberalism moderates those lows, and allows the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us an equal voice and basic dignity that would otherwise be denied.

Conservatism believes in the goodness of individual human nature and the right of everyone to succeed or fail on their own merits and it's willing to accept the human cost in the process.
Liberalism distrusts the inate goodness of individual human nature and believes people must be encouraged to make the right choices through a system of carrots and sticks, it is unwilling to accept the human cost of other's choices.

Conservatism believes that everyone has the same opportunities.
Liberalism believes that while everyone has the same opportunities, they do not start off on a level playing field.

But there always contradictions and extremes in those philosophies.

On the side of liberals, it's the abortion issue and, as a woman with an almost fanatical fear that someone else might try to control my independence and choices - I'm on the fence. The unborn child is weak and vulnerable. As a liberal - we should speak for it's voice.

On the side of conservatives - the right of individual choice and consequences says we should speak for the right of the woman to choose.

And anyone who speaks for life should stand up for both the right of the unborn child to live and an end to capital punishment.

Abortion AND capital punishment are not really liberal or conservative issues I think. You will find people of both ideologies embracing both sides of those arguments. The real argument between liberalism and conservatism when it comes to such issues is who should hold the power to regulate them? The federal government? Or the state?

And I don't think that it necessarily that conservatives trust in the inate goodness of humankind. Conservatism wants the federal/central government to have the responsibility to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people. This is because conservatives well know of the potential of one person or group to take away the rights of another or one state to make war on the other, so it is necessary to have a uniform protection against that. Otherwise we operate as 50 little sovereign nations instead of one strong, unified country.

But the conservative doesn't trust government to produce 'goodness' either. It see power given a central government to dictate what morality and goodness is will invariably result in that government using that power for self-serving interests of those given power to enforce it. And I believe we have seen some of the worse of that phenomenon in our lifetime and, if unchecked, it will get even more worse.

As it is, I think it is only the conscience of some in the federal government and the fact that we have a citizen military that would likely not support an unconstitutional coup that prevents us from becoming a totalitarian state now. We have allowed the federal government such power that it can do anything to any of us that it chooses to do. And we have little power to resist that.

Conservatism looks to history to see the positive benefits to humankind most demonstrated under liberty, self governance, and individual choice, options, and opportunity. As well as in each person being able to enjoy the fruits of his/her innovation, industry, and creativity. The benefits of liberty far outweigh the mistakes that are invariably made along the way.

Liberalism may indeed distrust human nature, but in my opinion, it puts far too much confidence in a government given total power to order society as government sees fit. That government, after all, is populated with the same fallable humans as those it presumes to govern. And when the government makes mistakes, everybody suffers.

 

[Pogo]

(Excerpted from the very well argued background for this conclusion

Bottom line:

Conservatism allows for the creation of some of the highest highs and most wretched lows.
Liberalism moderates those lows, and allows the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us an equal voice and basic dignity that would otherwise be denied.

Conservatism believes in the goodness of individual human nature and the right of everyone to succeed or fail on their own merits and it's willing to accept the human cost in the process.
Liberalism distrusts the inate goodness of individual human nature and believes people must be encouraged to make the right choices through a system of carrots and sticks, it is unwilling to accept the human cost of other's choices.

Conservatism believes that everyone has the same opportunities.
Liberalism believes that while everyone has the same opportunities, they do not start off on a level playing field.

But there always contradictions and extremes in those philosophies.

On the side of liberals, it's the abortion issue and, as a woman with an almost fanatical fear that someone else might try to control my independence and choices - I'm on the fence. The unborn child is weak and vulnerable. As a liberal - we should speak for it's voice.

On the side of conservatives - the right of individual choice and consequences says we should speak for the right of the woman to choose.

And anyone who speaks for life should stand up for both the right of the unborn child to live and an end to capital punishment.

Abortion AND capital punishment are not really liberal or conservative issues I think. You will find people of both ideologies embracing both sides of those arguments. The real argument between liberalism and conservatism when it comes to such issues is who should hold the power to regulate them? The federal government? Or the state?

Or... either/neither?

Just to pull this one issue aside (because the entire post covers rather a lot of ground), the way I read Coyote's musing was to offer two logical path perspectives that would seem to run counter to popular associations. So you're right, there are certainly those of both ideologies on either side of either issue, although I don't think Coyote was suggesting otherwise.

But it brings up an issue of commitment to an ideal; if one is, say, against abortion on the basis of protecting life, then one cannot turn around and be for capital punishment, as it contradicts the same principle. And vice versa. Which in turn implies that those proffering such a duplicity are not doing so out of the basis of their own idealistic beliefs, but out of parroting an echo chamber that's instructing them on the proper beliefs their particular "camp" should be holding. In other words group mentality.

And that's a real problem -- a dearth of, and indeed a heavy discouragement of, reaching one's own conclusions personally and independently.

That's one of the main reasons I don't belong to a political party.

 

[Foxfyre]

(Excerpted from the very well argued background for this conclusion

Bottom line:

Conservatism allows for the creation of some of the highest highs and most wretched lows.
Liberalism moderates those lows, and allows the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us an equal voice and basic dignity that would otherwise be denied.

Conservatism believes in the goodness of individual human nature and the right of everyone to succeed or fail on their own merits and it's willing to accept the human cost in the process.
Liberalism distrusts the inate goodness of individual human nature and believes people must be encouraged to make the right choices through a system of carrots and sticks, it is unwilling to accept the human cost of other's choices.

Conservatism believes that everyone has the same opportunities.
Liberalism believes that while everyone has the same opportunities, they do not start off on a level playing field.

But there always contradictions and extremes in those philosophies.

On the side of liberals, it's the abortion issue and, as a woman with an almost fanatical fear that someone else might try to control my independence and choices - I'm on the fence. The unborn child is weak and vulnerable. As a liberal - we should speak for it's voice.

On the side of conservatives - the right of individual choice and consequences says we should speak for the right of the woman to choose.

And anyone who speaks for life should stand up for both the right of the unborn child to live and an end to capital punishment.

Abortion AND capital punishment are not really liberal or conservative issues I think. You will find people of both ideologies embracing both sides of those arguments. The real argument between liberalism and conservatism when it comes to such issues is who should hold the power to regulate them? The federal government? Or the state?

Or... either/neither?

Just to pull this one issue aside (because the entire post covers rather a lot of ground), the way I read Coyote's musing was to offer two logical path perspectives that would seem to run counter to popular associations. So you're right, there are certainly those of both ideologies on either side of either issue, although I don't think Coyote was suggesting otherwise.

But it brings up an issue of commitment to an ideal; if one is, say, against abortion on the basis of protecting life, then one cannot turn around and be for capital punishment, as it contradicts the same principle. And vice versa. Which in turn implies that those proffering such a duplicity are not doing so out of the basis of their own idealistic beliefs, but out of parroting an echo chamber that's instructing them on the proper beliefs their particular "camp" should be holding. In other words group mentality.

And that's a real problem -- a dearth of, and indeed a heavy discouragement of, reaching one's own conclusions personally and independently.

That's one of the main reasons I don't belong to a political party.

I am not interested so much in individual issues when choosing my candidate. I look for a basic perspective on what that candidate sees as the role of government in addressing the issues.

For instance, a conservative point of view easily justifies the death penalty for people who have committed such heinous crimes against other people--they so cruelly violate the unalienable rights of others--that they forfeit their right to exist here. In other words, capital punishment is used as a consequence of the intentional actions of the guilty.

The unborn however is totally innocent and, so far as we know, had no choice in the matter of whether he/she exists at all. Therefore there is no justification for denying his/her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness etc.

But, as a conservative and believing I speak the same as a sizable number of conservatives, I do not want the federal government dictating what our sense of morality must be in such matters. I want that left to the people of the states to decide.

 

[Pogo]

(Excerpted from the very well argued background for this conclusion

Bottom line:

Conservatism allows for the creation of some of the highest highs and most wretched lows.
Liberalism moderates those lows, and allows the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us an equal voice and basic dignity that would otherwise be denied.

Conservatism believes in the goodness of individual human nature and the right of everyone to succeed or fail on their own merits and it's willing to accept the human cost in the process.
Liberalism distrusts the inate goodness of individual human nature and believes people must be encouraged to make the right choices through a system of carrots and sticks, it is unwilling to accept the human cost of other's choices.

Conservatism believes that everyone has the same opportunities.
Liberalism believes that while everyone has the same opportunities, they do not start off on a level playing field.

But there always contradictions and extremes in those philosophies.

On the side of liberals, it's the abortion issue and, as a woman with an almost fanatical fear that someone else might try to control my independence and choices - I'm on the fence. The unborn child is weak and vulnerable. As a liberal - we should speak for it's voice.

On the side of conservatives - the right of individual choice and consequences says we should speak for the right of the woman to choose.

And anyone who speaks for life should stand up for both the right of the unborn child to live and an end to capital punishment.

Abortion AND capital punishment are not really liberal or conservative issues I think. You will find people of both ideologies embracing both sides of those arguments. The real argument between liberalism and conservatism when it comes to such issues is who should hold the power to regulate them? The federal government? Or the state?

Or... either/neither?

Just to pull this one issue aside (because the entire post covers rather a lot of ground), the way I read Coyote's musing was to offer two logical path perspectives that would seem to run counter to popular associations. So you're right, there are certainly those of both ideologies on either side of either issue, although I don't think Coyote was suggesting otherwise.

But it brings up an issue of commitment to an ideal; if one is, say, against abortion on the basis of protecting life, then one cannot turn around and be for capital punishment, as it contradicts the same principle. And vice versa. Which in turn implies that those proffering such a duplicity are not doing so out of the basis of their own idealistic beliefs, but out of parroting an echo chamber that's instructing them on the proper beliefs their particular "camp" should be holding. In other words group mentality.

And that's a real problem -- a dearth of, and indeed a heavy discouragement of, reaching one's own conclusions personally and independently.

That's one of the main reasons I don't belong to a political party.

I am not interested so much in individual issues when choosing my candidate. I look for a basic perspective on what that candidate sees as the role of government in addressing the issues.

For instance, a conservative point of view easily justifies the death penalty for people who have committed such heinous crimes against other people--they so cruelly violate the unalienable rights of others--that they forfeit their right to exist here. In other words, capital punishment is used as a consequence of the intentional actions of the guilty.

The unborn however is totally innocent and, so far as we know, had no choice in the matter of whether he/she exists at all. Therefore there is no justification for denying his/her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness etc.

But, as a conservative and believing I speak the same as a sizable number of conservatives, I do not want the federal government dictating what our sense of morality must be in such matters. I want that left to the people of the states to decide.

Well you've moved the reasoning goalposts there in order to have it both ways. Anyway I wasn't referring to political candidates in disdaining groupthink, but to we, the people.

The candidates will say whatever the group-thinks it wants to hear. I place no import on candidate-speak. As a Liberal I believe power rests in the People, therefore what we think is what's important, not what they think. Which seems all the more reason to not be led around by the echo-chamber nose.

 

[Foxfyre]

(Excerpted from the very well argued background for this conclusion

Bottom line:

Conservatism allows for the creation of some of the highest highs and most wretched lows.
Liberalism moderates those lows, and allows the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us an equal voice and basic dignity that would otherwise be denied.

Conservatism believes in the goodness of individual human nature and the right of everyone to succeed or fail on their own merits and it's willing to accept the human cost in the process.
Liberalism distrusts the inate goodness of individual human nature and believes people must be encouraged to make the right choices through a system of carrots and sticks, it is unwilling to accept the human cost of other's choices.

Conservatism believes that everyone has the same opportunities.
Liberalism believes that while everyone has the same opportunities, they do not start off on a level playing field.

But there always contradictions and extremes in those philosophies.

On the side of liberals, it's the abortion issue and, as a woman with an almost fanatical fear that someone else might try to control my independence and choices - I'm on the fence. The unborn child is weak and vulnerable. As a liberal - we should speak for it's voice.

On the side of conservatives - the right of individual choice and consequences says we should speak for the right of the woman to choose.

And anyone who speaks for life should stand up for both the right of the unborn child to live and an end to capital punishment.

Abortion AND capital punishment are not really liberal or conservative issues I think. You will find people of both ideologies embracing both sides of those arguments. The real argument between liberalism and conservatism when it comes to such issues is who should hold the power to regulate them? The federal government? Or the state?

Or... either/neither?

Just to pull this one issue aside (because the entire post covers rather a lot of ground), the way I read Coyote's musing was to offer two logical path perspectives that would seem to run counter to popular associations. So you're right, there are certainly those of both ideologies on either side of either issue, although I don't think Coyote was suggesting otherwise.

But it brings up an issue of commitment to an ideal; if one is, say, against abortion on the basis of protecting life, then one cannot turn around and be for capital punishment, as it contradicts the same principle. And vice versa. Which in turn implies that those proffering such a duplicity are not doing so out of the basis of their own idealistic beliefs, but out of parroting an echo chamber that's instructing them on the proper beliefs their particular "camp" should be holding. In other words group mentality.

And that's a real problem -- a dearth of, and indeed a heavy discouragement of, reaching one's own conclusions personally and independently.

That's one of the main reasons I don't belong to a political party.

I am not interested so much in individual issues when choosing my candidate. I look for a basic perspective on what that candidate sees as the role of government in addressing the issues.

For instance, a conservative point of view easily justifies the death penalty for people who have committed such heinous crimes against other people--they so cruelly violate the unalienable rights of others--that they forfeit their right to exist here. In other words, capital punishment is used as a consequence of the intentional actions of the guilty.

The unborn however is totally innocent and, so far as we know, had no choice in the matter of whether he/she exists at all. Therefore there is no justification for denying his/her right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness etc.

But, as a conservative and believing I speak the same as a sizable number of conservatives, I do not want the federal government dictating what our sense of morality must be in such matters. I want that left to the people of the states to decide.

Well you've moved the reasoning goalposts there in order to have it both ways. Anyway I wasn't referring to political candidates in disdaining groupthink, but to we, the people.

The candidates will say whatever the group-thinks it wants to hear. I place no import on candidate-speak. As a Liberal I believe power rests in the People, therefore what we think is what's important, not what they think. Which seems all the more reason to not be led around by the echo-chamber nose.

I haven't moved anything--my opinion of conservatism and government has been rock solid for some time now because I believe it to be entirely defensible. When it is not then I will know I am wrong.

In my opinion there is no 'group think' among conservatives. People are conservatives because they think for themselves. They sure as heck aren't buying into the MSM hype and are shaking off leftist educational indoctrination and their views about various social issues are widely diverse. The one thing they are unified on is that a free people govern themselves and are not subject to dictator, monarch, pope, or other totalitarian form of government that would order every aspect of our mutual lives together.

Liberty also allows like minded individuals to form social contract that benefits all and allows them to form a society that fits their chosen way of life and sense of morality. A central government that disagrees with their choice should not have the power to prevent that. Nor should it have power of any kind to decide/dictate what morality must be.

Conservatives are pretty well unified in their belief that a government big enough and powerful enough to provide what we want and need is a government powerful enough to do anything to us it wants to do. The U.S. Constitution was designed to protect the people from just that sort of government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Your point is taken however you are treating Islam as a monolithic entity which it isn't. Muslims in America don't have the same adherence to the social order that you are claiming they do. The variances in how Muslims see their faith is as varied as it is amongst Christians and Jews. In essence you could say the exact things about fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews. But they are a minority and so you are egregiously labeling all Muslims as being no different to the minority fundamentalist faction.

Now feel free to call me an "authoritarian leftist" just because I don't buy into your mischaracterization of the vast majority of 1.5 billion people.

You can certainly avail yourself to reputable opinion polls to see what Muslims do actually believe. You can certainly pretend all you want that Islam is no different than Christianity or Judaism, but the the polls reveal quite a different story.

It is quite obvious that not all Muslims hold the exact, same beliefs, but that doesn't mean the beliefs they do hold are comparable to other religions. You have simply predetermined that you must defend them because you do not apply liberal principles to the subject.

What percentage of the world's Muslims believe in killing those who leave their "faith", for instance? How many Islamic countries have laws against blasphemy? How many Christians or Jews believe in killing those who leave their faith? How many Christian or Jewish countries have laws against blasphemy?

You are basing your political opinions on what you do not know about Islam. I base mine on what I do.

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

Or walk into your office and shoot you because of your cartoons.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In my opinion there is no 'group think' among conservatives. People are conservatives because they think for themselves. They sure as heck aren't buying into the MSM hype and are shaking off leftist educational indoctrination and their views about various social issues are widely diverse. The one thing they are unified on is that a free people govern themselves and are not subject to dictator, monarch, pope, or other totalitarian form of government that would order every aspect of our mutual lives together.

I agree. There is a lot of "group don't think" among conservatives (and liberals). That is what keeps Ed Shultz and Sean Hannity in business.

People are conservative for a large variety of reasons. Mostly because they don't like the authority of the government (and the potential such authority brings with it).

Unfortunately, instead of considering their circumstances, many appeal to the authority of the bible in the same "group don't think" fashion. As one put it, "God said, I believe it, and that settles it."

Maybe they just want a state or a place where they can be ignorant and not have to deal with the consequences of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion there is no 'group think' among conservatives. People are conservatives because they think for themselves. They sure as heck aren't buying into the MSM hype and are shaking off leftist educational indoctrination and their views about various social issues are widely diverse. The one thing they are unified on is that a free people govern themselves and are not subject to dictator, monarch, pope, or other totalitarian form of government that would order every aspect of our mutual lives together.

I agree. There is a lot of "group don't think" among conservatives (and liberals). That is what keeps Ed Shultz and Sean Hannity in business.

People are conservative for a large variety of reasons. Mostly because they don't like the authority of the government (and the potential such authority brings with it).

Unfortunately, instead of considering their circumstances, many appeal to the authority of the bible in the same "group don't think" fashion. As one put it, "God said, I believe it, and that settles it."

Maybe they just want a state or a place where they can be ignorant and not have to deal with the consequences of it.

I'm not sure we do entirely agree. While it is true that many Bible fundamentalists are conservative, that is not a given. I know a couple of folks here at USMB who who quite liberal but who take their Bible very literally.

Most of the folks that I know who lean right of center are not fundamentalists however so I have to believe that the fundamentalists comprise a fairly small percentage of the population, even the conservative part of the population.

I'm not sure what you mean by "group don't think'. Is that the same thing as group think? To me 'group think' is the phenomenon where the politically correct or politically appropriate position is stated and everybody accepts and parrots it in lock step. I see that on the left a whole bunch more than I see it on the right.

It is because I do believe most conservatives do think for themselves and aren't willing to engage in group think that hurts us politically--we aren't as lock step unified as the left is because we are willing to disagree on and debate how best to do government, address problems, etc.

Schultz is in business because the 'haters' enjoy having somebody speak for them. Hannity is in business because he gives a lot of attention to issues that others don't give as much attention to, and he is consistent in expressing a conservative point of view. Sometimes folks just want their opinions reinforced and it feels good to listen to somebody who expresses them. I don't have any serious problems with Hannity myself but don't tune into his program often as it is pretty one note and that is often boring to me.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I'm not sure what you mean by "group don't think'. Is that the same thing as group think? To me 'group think' is the phenomenon where the politically correct or politically appropriate position is stated and everybody accepts and parrots it in lock step. I see that on the left a whole bunch more than I see it on the right.

I think Sun Devil was pointing out is the inherent misnomer of the term "group think'. The very process of such conformity indicates there is precious little thinking involved.

As to your comment about seeing it more on the left, that is because you see yourself as very much part of the right. If you were very much part of the left, you would view it as more common on the right.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure what you mean by "group don't think'. Is that the same thing as group think? To me 'group think' is the phenomenon where the politically correct or politically appropriate position is stated and everybody accepts and parrots it in lock step. I see that on the left a whole bunch more than I see it on the right.

I think Sun Devil was pointing out is the inherent misnomer of the term "group think'. The very process of such conformity indicates there is precious little thinking involved.

As to your comment about seeing it more on the left, that is because you see yourself as very much part of the right. If you were very much part of the left, you would view it as more common on the right.

That is possible I suppose. But looking at it as objectively as possible, I don't see the 'group think' on the right like it exists on the left.

On abortion: almost 100% in favor of mostly unrestricted abortion laws on the left. Most approve of forcing insurance companies and businesses to provide for it and contraceptives on heathcare policies.

The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

On gay marriage, the left is 100% unified in supporting it and in punishing all those who oppose it or who even say they oppose it.

The right is all over the map on that one too.

On immigration, the left is pretty well unified that Obama is addressing that appropriately.

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that.

On government spending, the left is pretty unified that the runaway national debt and huge deficits are not a problem.

On the right, there is much more diversity in what government spending is appropriate.

We can go right down the line issue by issue and see mostly the same phenomena.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

That is possible I suppose. But looking at it as objectively as possible, I don't see the 'group think' on the right like it exists on the left.

On abortion: almost 100% in favor of mostly unrestricted abortion laws on the left. Most approve of forcing insurance companies and businesses to provide for it and contraceptives on heathcare policies.

The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

On gay marriage, the left is 100% unified in supporting it and in punishing all those who oppose it or who even say they oppose it.

The right is all over the map on that one too.

On immigration, the left is pretty well unified that Obama is addressing that appropriately.

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that.

On government spending, the left is pretty unified that the runaway national debt and huge deficits are not a problem.

On the right, there is much more diversity in what government spending is appropriate.

We can go right down the line issue by issue and see mostly the same phenomena.

I see it on both sides and have commented on it extensively.

What people fail to understand is that when people view politics as identity, they become part of a tribe, and when they become part of a tribe, their ego acts in such a way as to extend their protection of self to include the tribe in a generalized way. The double standards thus created are enormous, as when we engage the world with an "us vs them" mentality, we become so focused on the them that we forget the us.

People on the right too often use the term "liberal" as a simple pejorative. People on the left likewise with the term "right wing". They don't actually understand what liberalism or conservatism actually entail, as they lack the ability to understand politics in terms of principles and ideas. They see it only as identity.

Once a person falls for the notion that it isn't an idea that is liberal or conservative, but a person, they lose whatever objectivity they might claim by way of understanding. They are too invested in the process of polarization to have that objectivity. .