From another thread: While his definitions leave something to be desired (IMHO), he brings up a legitimate issue. What is the fundamental difference between so called conservatives and liberals? In my opinion, the difference can be expressed in one sentence: Conservatives are primarily concerned with Freedom, whereas Liberals are primarily concerned with Equality. From that, springs most other differences. In principle, most people support both freedom and equality. But there are many times in which the two principles come into opposition and differences of opinion on just what the terms mean. Conservatives see government as one of the greatest threats to human freedom. A necessary evil. They want the smallest, weakest government possible that can maintain order and defend the shores. They want freedom and equality before the law. Liberals see government as a force for good. They want government to take an active role in solving basically every problem humanity faces. Instead of defining freedom as freedom of action and thought; they throw in things like freedom from hunger and want not just equality before the law but for the government to step in to ensure equal outcomes (or at least more equal outcomes). On the economic front, conservatives want economic freedom. In other words, they want government to get out of the way (Laissez Faire). Leave the people free to earn a living as they see fit and each person looking out for their own interests will result in the best outcome for the nation as a whole via the "invisible hand" (aka emergence) Liberals, on the other hand, are unhappy with the inequalities that result from the free enterprise system. They believe government should step in to "spread the wealth around". On social issues it gets a bit more complicated since some "conservatives" are happy to use the state to enforce their version of morality. But the general idea still applies on issues such as affirmative action. Conservatives want each individual to be treated equally before the law, liberals want the government to step in to address the unequal outcomes that a neutral approach would yield. Anyway, that's my two cents. Conservatives value freedom above all else, whereas Liberals favor equality. What's yours?
>"Conservatives see government as one of the greatest threats to human freedom. A necessary evil. They want the smallest, weakest government possible" Well, then there are no conservatives in today's politics...
That's pretty much backwards, near as I can tell. Just to point to the most obvious, it's the self-described "conservatives" who seem continually obsessed with "elites" - the possibility that someone, somewhere, thinks they are better than said conservative. This obsession with equality, this hypersensitivity to the slightest hint of derogation or disrespect, is almost a defining characteristic of the self-described "conservative". It's far more important to them than any passing concern with civil liberties or freedom of action - downright authoritarian thugs can win office with the "conservative" vote simply by acting like one of the guys, carefully avoiding any hint of personal superiority, contrasting themselves with their electoral opponents as less snooty or condescending.
True, liberals value freedom, and they recognize that corporate organizations can be just as oppressive as government, and less accountable. Liberals stand for social justice, and use politics as the tool for attaining that justice. There is no freedom without justice and equality.
A liberal is a conservative who has just been arrested. A conservative is a liberal who has just been mugged. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As far as I can tell they seem to be two sides of the same coin. Both conservatives and liberals stand for freedom above all else. They just seem to have different definitions of what freedom is and what they expect from it. As most liberals are not glorified peace loving tree hugging hippies and most conservatives aren't (possibly psychotic) bible thumping fundalmentalists. They really could meet in the middle on a lot of issues, but are rarely willing to do so. People who try get labeled all kinds of nasty names by both parties.
That's nothing other than a GOP canard. To the topic: in modern US usage, "conservative" is a term that radical reactionaries apply to themselves in the hopes of sounding more principled and benign than they are. "Liberal" is a term of derision they apply to anyone who stands in the way of their program of class warfare. As to how all of the "freedom/equality" stuff ends up getting conflated with that, it's fairly straightforward. In the contemporary USA, the reactionary program is all about protecting and expanding the privileges and powers of the ultra-wealthy (essentially, large corporations and their dynastic families). Their idyll is, as they constantly remind us, America before the New Deal. Which is to say, the Gilded Age of Robber Barons, where inequality was rampant, what middle class there was was politically marginalized and co-opted by the aristocracy, the politicians were owned and the masses lived in a state of desparation and were exploited ruthlessly. It should not be difficult to observe the extent to which they've been successful at making the USA resemble that ever more closely during the past 30+ years. This is the "conservative" vision for America, and the obvious difficulty in selling such to anyone other than plutocrats is pretty obvious. Hence all of modern GOP politics, and the "freedom" canard invoked in the OP: by conflating the freedom of aristocrats and corporations to exploit the population without government interference, with individual freedom as such, they are able to sell non-plutocrats on a platform that manifestly, directly harms their interests. A lot goes into maintaining that that Big Lie, including the co-option of Christianity, the endless bigoted diversions, and so on. Its most crystallized form is the contemporary Libertarian, who has drank so much Kool-Aid that he is literally unable to recognize any form of restraint on freedom other than government restraint (this despite the fact that the US government doesn't restrain the freedom of anyone but the malign and exploitative in any meaningful way, while it does buttress the freedom of everyone else in manifold ways - including exactly by inhibiting the "freedom" of powerful, preadtory interests). So, in a nutshell, we have radical reactionaries waging open class warfare against the middle and lower classes. Seen honestly, that's a loser in electoral terms. So they dress it up as "conservative" pursuit of "freedom," buy up some churches and start a culture war to subvert that rightful result. No surprise that they go around calling their opponents "communists" and demonizing the idea of "equality." Equality is incompatible with aristocracy, after all.
Meanwhile, as to liberals, the best encapsulation I've ever heard was (to paraphrase BHL from memory): "A liberal is someone who refuses to choose between freedom and security."
As far as I know, there are only a handful of liberals and conservatives in our congress. Everyone else is some degree of corporate stooge.
Yet true freedom will result in inequality, won't it? Also, you've given your ideas on what a liberal is. What do you think defines conservatism? Indeed. Even Tiassa and I occasionally find areas of agreement. Classic. Typical demonization of the other side without any real attempt to understand where they're coming from or to see things from their perspective. Please try again when you're ready to give a serious answer. Sad but true.
Where were the conservatives who were concerned about the freedom of blacks in the south in the fifties and sixties? Those who raised hell over federally mandated school integration certainly weren't liberal. This is just one of many, many examples I can think of. Conservatives fought integration of the armed forces. They've been fighting against gays rights since before the movement even existed. But surely women have been able to count on conservatives in their struggle for equality... One of the biggest dividing lines I see is that people who tend toward the conservative mindset need answers! No wishy washy "degrees of probability". Yes or no, positive or negative, black or white. That's why they tend to lock on to dogma with a grip more tenacious than the bite of a pit bull, refusing to abandon ideas even well after they have been proven outmoded, or outright false. The excluded middle is the number one logical fallacy of conservatives. An example of that is the idea that punishment deters crime. No matter how much evidence to the contrary there is, this idea refuses to die. The sort that glom on to this mindset have only contempt for your puny "facts" and "evidence". They've made up their mind, stop trying to confuse them with facts. "Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant." -- H L Mencken
He who has the gold makes the rules and anyone who disagrees is a nasty liberal. That is a pretty good summation of conservatism and liberalism. So called conservatives are never concerned about big government when they profit from same. In fact they forment those profitable relationships to the expense of all else. Ironically there has never been a conservative government when government has actually shrunk or spent less. Conservatism as practiced by Republicans/Tea Partiers is a political movement based on deception. It is the only way they can attain votes to gain political power. And that is why they are so oppposed to campaign spending reforms - taking special interest money out of politics.
I don't define freedom in terms of economic freedom to exploit. Freedom means building a large middle class, and to achieve that we must place limits on corporate power. What defines conservatism is an unrealistic faith that some force such as the free markets or perhaps God will make sure society is healthy if only we just left it alone. Liberals see politics as a tool of social, economic, and technological change.
Nonsense. The quoted material was nothing other than a real, serious analysis of the sources and perspective of "conservatives." That you don't like the result - that you are actually supporting "demonic" politics - is no criticism of me.
I don't think there is a single coherent philosophy underlying either of the conservative or liberal positions. Rather than turn the distinction solely on Freedom vs. Equality, which I think one has to admit could best be a rough approximation of the distinction(s), I think it is more accurate to look at multiple sets of traits. That's why you get things like economic conservatives who are for virulently opposed to open borders (despite the fact that most economic activity in the U.S. is the sale of labor, and border crossing restrictions are a clear barrier to entry and prevent there from being a free market). Those we call "conservative" here in the U.S. are more likely to be in favor of free markets, but yet be closed-border advocates and opponents of increased immigration. You also have "conservatives" who are not very enamored with the free market...those who want tariffs and importation restrictions, oppose the freedom of businesses to set up plants abroad, etc.--the conservative populists. The easiest way to explain these differing positions is to assume that people have several factors at work, which each weights differently, with a real, but not overwhelming tendency to conform one's views (or those weights) to those around you who have similar beliefs. I keep trying to come up with just two twinned characteristics that capture something of the liberal-conservative split, and I thought I saw something in comparing those with a preference for personal competition versus those who prefer cooperative solutions in their political policy issues, but that too falls too wide of the mark for me to bother printing in full.
