What does it mean to be a conservative and a liberal.
Lets see how civil and honest we can be...
Liberal: Believes that the government's main purpose is to take care of people who can not take care of themselves. They believe there is a lot of social injustice that needs to be fixed by the govt.
Conservative: Believes that the govt is there protect the people, by having a strong military. Govt should be as small as possible, and should be around to do things people can not do on their own...like build roads. Govt can give the individual person a hand, but overall personal responsibility is expected.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Define:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
Liberal: wants to achieve equality of outcome.
Conservative: wants to achieve equality of opportunity.
thats not bad
Liberal: wants to achieve equality of outcome.
Outcomes are the only thing that matters. Everything else is just a bunch of talk. (It's not even clear how you would measure whether opportunities were equal except in terms of outcomes being equal.)
Liberals are people who understand that threats to personal freedom don't simply come from the government or the nation's enemies. Unrestrained, anarchic capitalism has just as much power to deprive us of our freedoms.
Guaranteeing equal outcomes or working to provide equal outcomes is counter productive as it stifles the type of creativity needed for a society to thrive. In any culture where that end is in place, it removes it in order to stimulate the creativity needed to achieve a desired end.
Under the conservative philosophy of providing for equal opportunity, this is accomplished as much by doing little than by doing anything. It assumes that left to their own the people will accomplish that which it needs to accomplish. It assumes they already have that capability and spirit. The unbridled freedom gives those with the desire the greenlight to their goals. Laws are then put in place once that freedom is abused, but the freedom is given to all and the conservative understands that he can use it to it's fullest, or do just enough to get by, or alternate between the two, but whether he does either, it's with the acceptance of the responsibilities that go with it.
conservative: encourages the best from people.
liberal: enables the worst in people.
When conservatives write law, they are generally attempting to give incentive to that type of character that never quits reaching for the stars (sorry. I'll clean up the sap later.).
When liberals craft law, they are generally accomodating negative characteristics in people and removing responsibility.
I'm not necessarily going to disagree (right now) with any of those definitions of liberal or conservative. But my question for conservatives is why you would vote for Republicans, because they seem not to pursue policies that match the definitions either the Game or Elliot provided.
Hey game - Don't forget Independents, man!! LOL
Marshall Art - I should admit - You are funny. I had a good laugh though I don't agree with many!
"But my question for conservatives is why you would vote for Republicans, because they seem not to pursue policies that match the definitions either the Game or Elliot provided."
Like "Govt should be as small as possible"....
Nobody accomplished smaller government like Bill Clinton...as opposed to Bush, who's done nothing but enlarge government and its scope.
Also, under Bill Clinton, the poor moved up to the working class, the working class moved up to the middle class, and a whole LOT of middle class folks got rich...which is the way the whole Republican mantra was supposed to have played out.
I'm not bringing this up to praise Bill Clinton, but its important to recognize that, if conservatives wanted to be honest, they'd accept that Bill Clinton was the best Republican president the nation ever had, and let go of the self-delusion that neocons really represented any of the conservative "values" they used to gain control of office, and change their platforms to reflect the new realities of this land, and build on whatever new strengths they discover.
conservative: encourages the best from people.
liberal: enables the worst in people.
It certainly seemed to encourage the best from David Vitter!
Seriously, though, Marshall - your "definitions" are little more than "liberals = poopy heads, conseratives = not poopy heads." Could we call them daffynitions, perhaps? Because you'd have to be a little daffy to think that you've said anything insightful about this topic.
When conservatives write law, they are generally attempting to give incentive to that type of character that never quits reaching for the stars (sorry. I'll clean up the sap later.).
Uh huh. When conservatives were trying to overturn House ethics rules that would have forced disgraced Texas representative Tom DeLay to step down from his committee assignments, was that "reaching for the stars?" Or was that better described as "accomodating negative characteristics" in the House leadership?
I think it would be better if we defined only our own sides. I don't see any merit in trying to see who can come up with the most veiled, disingenuous way to backhandedly attack the other side.
Under the conservative philosophy of providing for equal opportunity, this is accomplished as much by doing little than by doing anything. It assumes that left to their own the people will accomplish that which it needs to accomplish.
It also assumes that, left to themselves, people won't try to block each other's opportunity; that's pretty obviously a bad assumption. People don't need to be in the government to have the desire and power to get in the way of other people's freedoms. Sexists want to block the freedom of women. Racists want to block the freedom of minorities. Bigots want to block the freedom of gay people.
Corporations want to block the freedom of the consumer to make free market decisions and create monopoly. You're proving my point, Marshall - the government isn't the only thing that gets in our way. Sometimes - often - government has a legitimate purpose in keeping the rest of us out of each other's way.
"Corporations want to block the freedom of the consumer to make free market decisions and create monopoly."
A perfect example of this would be the sabotage of Air America radio, the only progressive talk radio network, while crying about the "lib'rull" media.
We could find disparities in each definition laid out here. So what? Because some fall short of lofty goals, does not mean the goals should be lowered. Of course it does to the left, which is what my definition of liberal meant.
But if we look at things like the tax code, most of it has been written to encourage the characteristics that result in success. When people complain about the tax write-offs the wealthy get, it's due to the fact that what they do is productive and beneficial to society. Even the most greedy SOB spends dough, makes dough and through his actions, money circulates through the economy, businesses thrive and people get employed.
But look at the laws of the left. The various welfare policies have had the most minimal of beneficial impact while at the same time creating havoc on our culture. It encouraged entitlement attitudes and the sense that people deserve simply because. Establishing abortion as a right (what a crock) rewarded the refusal of acting responsibly. It is the most heinous abdication of personal responsibility ever. This holds true for most of the planks of Dem and GOP platforms.
Jay,
Your question is a valid one. Voting for the Republican candidate these days seems to be a crap shoot. In recent years they have not been the type of conservatives for whom we would hope. This is all too sadly true and the effect of this played out in the last mid-term. (Yes, it was the lack of conservative behavior, not the war.)
But still, though it truly sticks in the craw to suffer such from our chosen, to vote for any from the Dems seems to make far less sense. To me, the GOP has some problems that need to be straightened out quickly. But the Dems have not come close to being worthy of higher office for the last few decades. And even on their best days, for which they have so very few, they don't come any closer to the qualities of a true conservative. Even with their faults, the GOP is still the better choice.
This is MY perception and I think it is pretty accurate. There are goals shared by both parties, but as you know the difference lies in how to achieve them. Just on the philosophical level, I can't support the liberal side of things because it seems to me to be from the start, opposed to human nature, or rather, playing to the worst of human nature.
game--
Conservatives believe in the Western Tradition: classical economics, liberal democracies, traditional morality, and the Rule of Law. Conservativism in the United States is basically liberalism in the sense of John Locke or John Stuart Mill.
Radicals believe in national control over the economy, and national control over state and local politics. They want to liberate people from what they see as old-fashioned norms -- the individual is responsible for nothing in their minds, and the group is responsible for everything. They blame free countries like the UK, Israel, and the United States for the world's evils, and lavish praise upon countries like Cuba and Venezuela.
Conservatives believe in the Western Tradition: classical economics, liberal democracies, traditional morality, and the Rule of Law.
I agree with you that conservatives pay lip service to these ideals, but I don't see any evidence that they've ever stood up for them. Did an illegal program of electronic eavesdropping stand up for the rule of law? Was David Vitter standing up for traditional morality when he was dipping his wick with $300 hookers?
I think it was Digby who said that conservatism can never fail; it can only be failed. That's really what it comes down to for partisan ideologues.
chet--
I wouldn't call the dollars and blood being spent to defend the Iraqi democracy lip service. A better example of lip service about human rights is the Rwandan massacre in 1994. Perhaps your earlier political beliefs concerning these things were correct.
On morality, I was making a philosophical distinction, not an assertion of personal authenticity. For example, the left believes all authority should be questioned and we should transgress all norms. The right in contrast is willing to defer to our cultural heritage we inherited from the Enlightenment, and hence is less likely to promote abortion, alternative lifestyles, drug abuse, et cetera.
Ultimately these things belong to the states. Which brings me to the Rule of Law. I'm talking about federalism here and the intent of the Constitution. Radicals would rather have uniform, comprehensive, nationalist solutions to these issues because they don't trust the people, despite the phony populist chest thumping.
As far as wiretaps are concerned, the ACLU lost their case in the Sixth Circuit Court. The Ninth Circuit Court, which is a liberal court, also upheld the monitoring of websites suspects visit, so I'm not convinced your complaint has any merit.
Jason, if you think the intellectuals of the Enlightenment eschewed "alternative lifestyles, drug abuse, et cetera" then you don't know your history.
"...because they don't trust the people..."
When you say "trust the people", you clearly mean liberals, progressives, the left, the centrists, etc.
Isn't that the crux of the problem?
For example, I frequently refer to the point where I chose to turn my back on "the troops", chiefly because I felt no pity for an army that served only the Republican-loyal half of the country, as my realization that, as long as they act in defiance of half the country's wishes, they were the Republican army.
Yet, the neocons continue to scream about "welfare" and "entitlements" exactly as they did thirty years ago....ignoring the fact that such programs bear no resemblance to what existed back then.
I recall, when benefits were substantially reduced and the welfare rolls were cut to a fraction of what they had ever been, Democrats stepped up to the plate, worked with Republicans to accommodate their demands, and, for better or worse, got what needed to be done, done.
Yet, whenever you listen to our Dim Son of a president, there is absolutely no sense of political compromise, of willingness to even listen to even the most moderate centrists (i.e., Iraq Study Group), his own inner circle (i.e., Colin Powell), or even his own generals!
Neocons in general (and President Bush in particular) have completely overstepped their bounds in the government, and the most horrific part being the fact that his loyalties are not even to America!
(witness involvement with PNAC, totally unrestricted borders (the troops are being removed from the Mexican border as we speak, and the Bush Crime Family has no reservations about locking up border guards who are just doing their jobs), and this bizarre "International Superhighway" schemes, which has now been expanded to multiple, existing north-south interstates.
Face it. Every cockeyed concept dreamt up by these characters on either side of the fence have equivalent numbers of supporters from the same, because they are bought and paid for by powerful lobbies and corporate interests.
In short, we need an entirely new form of government, or America will be vanquished.
"In short, we need an entirely new form of government, or America will be vanquished."
The above is the result of smoking tainted hash. Or eating tainted cornbeef. He never did answer my question.
In any case, the statement is stupid. What we need is better people. We get better people when traditional values and standards are supported and encouraged. This means people at the grass roots level manifesting and demanding these values. We have that for which we voted. The form of government is fine. But when the best people available are lacking, then the results are negative. Right now we have the best. That's not saying much of anything considering the alternative. But it's the reality of the situation. Be better yourself. Demand better in those who choose to serve.
I wouldn't call the dollars and blood being spent to defend the Iraqi democracy lip service.
Lip service is calling a proto-nascent theocracy a "fledgling democracy."
For example, the left believes all authority should be questioned and we should transgress all norms.
The left actually doesn't believe this, but thanks for playing.
As far as wiretaps are concerned, the ACLU lost their case in the Sixth Circuit Court.
Right - based on the novel legal interpretation that a crime committed in secret isn't actually illegal. Which is a little specious.
Jason - is there anything you believe about liberalism that has turned out to be true?
jay--
The history on this is solid. Take abortion for instance. Abortion after quickening was banned in the UK in 1803 with severe restrictions before quickening. In 1861 abortion was outlawed outright in the UK. The same pattern existed in other Western countries-- it wasn't until 1969 when abortion was legalized in Canada and Australia, 1973 in the United States, and 1967 in the United Kingdom. Then followed France (1975), West Germany (1976), New Zealand (1977), Italy (1978), and the Netherlands (1980).
In the United States abortion was legalized in a national manner (socialists always prefer comprehensive plans) by judicial activism. If one wants pro-choice state laws, fine, then change them at the state level. Before Roe abortion was legal in about 13 states, with two others allowing the practice with restrictions. But when you have judges with chet's mentality that "outcomes are the only thing that matters," you end up with legislation from the bench.
hash--
Pay attention chet. Hash, you just confirmed exactly what I stated above. Namely, for the modern liberal, the individual is responsible for nothing in their minds, and the group is responsible for everything. If individual judgment is not to be trusted, then everyone's opinion is equal, and policy is just a head count. That's why conservatives are concerned about ideas, federalism etc. , while liberals embrace the slimy Dick Morris theory of politics embracing consensus, polling, et cetera.
Note that the United States is not a pure Democracy. Read the Federalist Papers. In #64 Jay argues that the Senate was created in opposition to the House precisely to create a break on popular opinion of the moment. Hamilton makes the same point about the executive branch in #71:
There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted. The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.
Bush compromises often. He has given Democrats a lot of policy they desire from No Child Left Behind, to the prescription drug entitlement-- things Clinton couldn't even accomplish, and even stuck out his neck on amnesty. On top of this, Democrats have the nerve to compare the Bush Crime Family to Adolf Hitler. Then in the same breath they blame Dim Son, a dork with a meek personality, for worsening our discourse! That's audacity, and it isn't the audacity of hope.
First off, you clueless yokel masquerading as a Glenlivet-sipping WASP, I don't even happen to BE a Democrat.
I am a leftist, and quite proud of it.
Secondly, regarding "No Child's "Behind Left"....was firmly opposed the idiotic premise of testing rather than teaching from day one. Call Armstrong Williams or some other self-righteous oreo if you want accolades on that one. As far as I'm concerned, I'm ALREADY seeing the glorious results of the onset of this policy....every time I ask a store employee a question and don't understand a word of the tongues-speaking gibberish I get back.
"Behind, to the prescription drug entitlement-- things Clinton couldn't even accomplish..."
This so-called "entitlement" was a bonanza to no one but Chucklenuts' cronies in Big Pharma and the insurance cartels, so confusing that it has actually KILLED American senior citizens by stressing them out with the confusion of it all (but, perhaps, is that not the idea behind the whole scheme anyway?)
The only thing that Americans are entitled to under the failed policies of conservatism is misery.
"...and even stuck out his neck on amnesty..."
I'm not for amnesty, I actually know only one leftist who is, and no Democrats at all...yet more than a few dumbass Rethugs, whose only priority is to keep the cheap laborers plentiful, and completely eradicate American labor in the process, who do...
With leadership like that, we should only pray he "sticks his neck out" again far enough for it to someone to lop it off...
"On top of this, Democrats have the nerve to compare the Bush Crime Family to Adolf Hitler."
Well, I don't know about Democrats. And I'm not sure it's a fair comparison.
Adolf Hitler at least cared about his people.
Then again, you think Dick Morris is with the evil liberals.
What voltage are you on?
"The form of government is fine. But when the best people available are lacking, then the results are negative. Right now we have the best."
So you are in essence saying that America's fine and you support the status quo?
it wasn't until 1969 when abortion was legalized in Canada and Australia, 1973 in the United States
That's a little revisionist history there, Jason. Abortion was legal in America since the country's founding up until the 1900's.
If one wants pro-choice state laws, fine, then change them at the state level.
The 14th Amendment makes it pretty clear that you can't have different Constitutional rights just because you move from one state to the other. The US constitution, quite frankly, makes it illegal for states to deny a woman her constitutionally-protected right to evict unwanted tenants from her body.
That's why conservatives are concerned about ideas, federalism etc. , while liberals embrace the slimy Dick Morris theory of politics embracing consensus, polling, et cetera.
You mean, elected officials enacting the will of the people? Truly a dangerous idea, isn't it? I suppose that's why Bush, at every opportunity, expresses his complete disdain for the idea of enacting the will of the people who actually voted for him.
Note that the United States is not a pure Democracy.
Ah, so that's it. You just don't trust democracy, do you?
Jason, you didn't read my comment very carefully.
Hah,
"So you are in essence saying that America's fine and you support the status quo?"
No, stoner. I'm saying the form of government is fine. I was responding to your idiotic plea for a new form. It's the people we vote for that's the problem. There is a decided lack of quality people from which to select a leader. We have the best available. So once again, if you want improvements, it must come from the people, and from the people should improved choices come.
hash--
If you can understand why Bush's prescription drug benefit helps private companies, then you should be able to understand what's wrong with medicare, Hillarycare, single-payer -- the entire buffet of government proposals.
In short, we have good intentions creating a negative consequence.
Suppose government created universal automobile care-- all car purchases will be paid for by the government. The first thing that happens is increased demand: people are getting things for free, so they overuse the system.
Secondly, if you are a producer of something consumers are buying with government money, you're going to raise your prices. There's limits on even what a monopoly can charge in the free market, since it produces where its marginal revenue equals its marginal cost. But for a firm with goods being bought by government money, business will be booming. You'll raise prices, expand facilities, etc. and make record profits.
What happens now? Well, here you see the inevitable cost overrun to the government, since unlimited demand drives up the cost. So the government has two choices-- price controls, or rationing. In Western countries, they usually do both, but price controls are the first option, since politicians like to blame the problem they created on corporate greed. So they'll create an entire labyrinth of rules and regulations in an effort to keep the cost down.
That still won't do the trick. No cost to the consumers keep the customers coming to get something for nothing. As a result, the government ends up rationing, usually by putting people on waiting lists. Once this happens, the incentive to innovate, or to even do a good job, dramatically decreases.
If you understand the explanation given above, you'll understand why you'll see runaway entitlement costs to the government and record business profits whenever the government decides to get involved in this manner. We see it where the government is involved today in education and in healthcare. The same principle was observed in the communist countries where everything from cars to toilet paper to housing was provided by the government.
So if you really wanted to understand the economics behind this and don't want to be a tool of a politician of any party, I hope this helps.
chet--
The Constitution does not grant a right to an abortion. It does not say that anywhere within it. You would need a wild interpretation of the 14th amendment to polish this turd, which isn't a problem for judges, who like you, believe "Outcomes are the only thing that matters."
Now, of course I support representative government. If you want to legalize abortion in your state, pass a law and legalize it! But leftwingers are fearful states and localities will restrict the practice if left to their own devices. So they trust federal judges. They do not trust the people.
Now, on the topic of democracy. Look, if we had pure democracy, we'd abolish the judicial and the executive branch, abolish the senate, abolish state and local governments, and elect people randomly to the House of Representatives in the style of ancient Athens.
I thought government schools still taught civics. But I'll refresh your memory.
If you read the Federalist Papers, for example, you'll see a bunch of references to the Venetian Republic, the Roman Republic, the Achaean League, the British Parliament, the Dutch Republic, et cetera. They examined what works and what does not work with representative government, and created a system of separation of powers, checks and balances, and limits on what the federal government can do. Charity, for example, is not a prerogative of the federal government, but a province of the local and state government.
If the left disagreed, they should have amended the Constitution. Instead people like FDR packed the courts with judges who thought "Outcomes are the only thing that matters." After all, if you're a liberal who believes "Outcomes are the only thing that matters," then this practice will not seem controversial.
The Constitution does not grant a right to an abortion.
No, it's right there in the Fourth Amendment - the right to the security of the person.
Mandating that another human be allowed to take up rent-free occupancy of another person's body violates the security of the person. The Supreme Court sees it; every federal court sees it; all those guys are legal experts who see that the Constitution mandates a right to abortion. You're a layperson - so when you say it's not there, I just don't believe you.
If you want to legalize abortion in your state, pass a law and legalize it!
It is legal, by default. The question is - if you don't want to have an abortion, why do you need to prevent others from doing so?
And is it a legitimate purpose of government to enact into law one narrowly-held set of religious beliefs? I don't see that it is.
Instead people like FDR packed the courts with judges who thought "Outcomes are the only thing that matters."
Oh, don't be idiotic. If you think that FDR's appointees are still on any court anywhere in the country, then you need to take a civics class - or maybe learn to use a calculator.
Post a Comment