• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Conservative or Liberal/Right or Left?

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I've alwas wondered why people classify themselves as "conservative", "liberal", "moderate", etc....and what criteria they use.

Any examples?
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think years ago they actually had a meaning. The people who thought freely and wanted to change America were called "Liberals", and the ones who wanted to conserve the way America is now and keep it on trucking were called "Conservatives".

Not too sure as the origin though.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Arch Enemy said:
I think years ago they actually had a meaning. The people who thought freely and wanted to change America were called "Liberals", and the ones who wanted to conserve the way America is now and keep it on trucking were called "Conservatives".

Not too sure as the origin though.
Therein lies my confusion. I think that we all want to change some things and keep the status quo on others.

As an example, I'll give you my own views:

-I'm in favor of gun control

-I voted for Bush & Reagan......Then again, I voted for McGovern, Carter & Clinton

-I think we should have at least partially socialized medicine

-I'm against abortion

-I believe in abolishing the death penalty

-I'm not religious

-I am in favor of strong environmental laws

-I think we should have gone into Syria and Iran instead of Iraq.

-I believe in the legalization of certain drugs, like marihuana.

-I think we should leave North Korea to the Chinese and pull our troops out of South Korea.

- I think we should resign from NATO

-I think it's disgusting how people are divided in our country just because they belong to different political parties or voted for different candidates. We should respect each other's views.

-And I don't give a hoot what the Europeans think of us.
 

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I understand todays definitions of Liberal and Conservative

Liberalism:

Political Ideology advocating the ability of the individual to realize his full potential (quote from encyclopedia Encarta). This ideology transformed itself through 20th century into social reform such as Federal Unemployment insurance, Social Security and the growth of Trade unions to limit the exploitation of the industrial work force by Business Owners. These factors being brought on by the great depression, early 20th century Monopoly's and "Robber Barrons." Its often been associated with Socialism and Communism due to the belief that government should be directly involved in the regulation and distribution of commodities / services etc. that serve to sustain and enable individuals to realize their potential in society. (Not bashing it as socialism or communism here mind you just observing the reasoning)

By its definition it would also therefor advocate the protection of civil liberties as a primary goal which has lead to debates over the patriot act where civil liberties may be compromised in favor of other national interests.

Conserveratism:

Conservatism is the ideal of curbing rapid change and inovation in favor of maitaining balance and order (also Encarta). Modern conservative ideology as I understand it seeks to limit Government involvement in Business as was the situation prior to the 20th century and conserve original Capitalist non inter-ference policy. It also seeks to limit social reform where either religious or ecomic principles must be compromised in order to conserve those principles. It also seeks to limit government participation in social reform in favor of social reform activities being persued in the private sector thus conserving principles of capitalism and limited government. Debates over Healthcare, abortion and stem-cell research nowadays resemble these arguments.

I think i get it but feel free to bash me :)

I'm not sure why Liberalism and Conservatism are applied to our anti-war, pro-war sentiment with the exception of the fact that Social reform and Civil rights often need to be compromised in order to conduct military campaigns.

Conservatively speaking I would think Conservatives are pro war because they preserve the idea vested in the creation of our constitution that one of our federal governments primary roles is to interact with the international community and as such favor's federal government activities of International interest over Internal, especially social, interests. It seems though that the pro-war anti-war sentiment is split down this line none the less.

I prefer to use pro-war / anti-war to liberal or conservatives to be accurate.
 

KevinWan

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Arch Enemy said:
I think years ago they actually had a meaning. The people who thought freely and wanted to change America were called "Liberals", and the ones who wanted to conserve the way America is now and keep it on trucking were called "Conservatives".

Not too sure as the origin though.
I'm pretty sure that these definitions still apply today. Libs are more apt to be open to change, whereas conservatives are not. In todays world, but not always, conservatives are optimists, liberals more pessimistic. Conservatives today see the politics and world as reletively fine and not in need of drastic change. Libs see the world as falling apart beneath us and in need of drastic change. Conservatives uphold tradition, particulary traditional values such as marriage and the family, seeing them as able to withstand the tests of time. Liberals see progressivism, and the need to adapt our lives to modernity.

In U.S. politics today, Republicans are more conservative, democrats more liberal. However, do not confuse that as ALWAYS true, throughout the history of our country. During Abe Lincoln's republican party, the party was liberal (he did afterall open his mind to freeing slaves), whereas the democratic party was more conservative. The conservativeness and liberalness of the two parties does change throughout time. However, Republicans have always felt America's republican ideals (ie states rights) were more important, whereas Democrats have always favored a stronger federal government.

This is how I've always seen the American political scene. Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere. Just for the sake of... something... I'm a conservative republican. ;)
 

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
KevinWan said:
In U.S. politics today, Republicans are more conservative, democrats more liberal. However, do not confuse that as ALWAYS true, throughout the history of our country. During Abe Lincoln's republican party, the party was liberal (he did afterall open his mind to freeing slaves), whereas the democratic party was more conservative. republican. ;)
Good point dude.

The values of "Conservatives" will ever be evolving which leads to the notion that every Liberal grows into a Conservative by virtue of him wanting to "Conserve" the changes that came from his "Liberal" thought. Liberal I think remains the same although how liberalism is applied depends on the set circumstances surrounding the ideal at any given point in time.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Crispy said:
Liberalism:

Political Ideology advocating the ability of the individual to realize his full potential (quote from encyclopedia Encarta). This ideology transformed itself through 20th century into social reform such as Federal Unemployment insurance, Social Security and the growth of Trade unions to limit the exploitation of the industrial work force by Business Owners...

Here's my interpretation of the history around this, feel free to comment.

I think that in the late 1700s and 1800s, liberals were, in fact, "the ability of the individual to realize his full potential." Then, this transformation of which you speak occured, and many people who were swayed by a more socialist ideology started to call themselves liberals.

Throughout the progressive era and later during the new deal, liberals who believed in a limited role of government became increasingly alienated by the liberal mainstream which. Milton Friedman, a well-known conservative economist, used to refer to himself as a liberal. However, as the term liberal became more and more synonymous with "big governments," free-marketeers had to distinguish themselves by using the word "classical liberal" and "libertarian."

Now I consider myself a classical liberal, but my liberal friends would never allow me to get away with the liberal title given some of my viewpoints as I will often be called conservative, or even neoconservative.

Open-mindedness is an issue where modern liberals think they have an upper hand. Being in some conservative circles, I can tell you that there exist quite a few conservatives that need to improve their attitude towards homosexuals and women.

However, I don't see how liberals have an open mind. Perhaps they have an open mind about conviently ignoring certain sections of our constitution in order to push their agenda. I believe people should be free to persue any lifestyle that is not conflicting with the rights of others. Many liberal policies I interpret as an attempt at "social engineering," which I defined as altering people's life-choices through penalties and rewards.

I still don't understand why some liberals can't see how taxing religious people and using the money to set up a secular school isn't infringing on the freedom of life choices for the religious. Now I'm not advocating organized prayer in school, but I think many liberals just have a bad attitude towards people who may be slightly oppressed by thier precious social-engineering schemes.
 
Last edited:

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Awesome points dude.


Then, this transformation of which you speak occured, and many people who were swayed by a more socialist ideology started to call themselves liberals.
Just to elaborate on the "transformation" a bit (I need a knowlegeable liberal to confirm this though :) ), liberal minded american's saw socialist ideals as a means to realize a goal. So I don't equate "liberal" with socialism or communism in that one need not believe in the political ideology to be liberal. Capitalism can arguably net the same result and I'd venture to say that many liberals believe that including yourself if I read ya right. I think modern Liberalism takes a stance that Government has more of a responsibility to directly engage in this ideal.

Now I consider myself a classical liberal, but my liberal friends would never allow me to get away with the liberal title given some of my viewpoints as I will often be called conservative, or even neoconservative.
You might actually consider youself a conservative in that you're "conserving" your original liberal point of view vs a new breed of liberalism. (no offense if you don't like being labeled as such)

Open-mindedness is an issue where modern liberals think they have an upper hand. Being in some conservative circles, I can tell you that there exist quite a few conservatives that need to improve their attitude towards homosexuals and women.

However, I don't see how liberals have an open mind. Perhaps they have an open mind about conviently ignoring certain sections of our constitution in order to push their agenda. However, I believe people should be free to persue any lifestyle that is not conflicting with the rights of others.
I think Open Mindedness goes across the board. Liberals and Conservatives seem to have their group who aren't open minded. I tend to be conservative as per the definitions that I put forth here but I'm a longed haired hippy dude that lives a pretty liberal lifestyle despite my religious and political conservative up-bringing. I just happen to believe in alot of the values that I was brought up with that are conservative values and that I would hesitate to change. I think both sides could afford more open mindedness. Conservatives have to realize (like me) that the world must change and we all must re-evaluate our ideals based on an ever changing world where'as Liberals need to realize that its difficult to adopt emerging new Philosopies and Ideologies that present a danger to the ideals we conservatives believe in.

Throughout the progressive era and later during the new deal, liberals who believed in a limited role of government became increasingly alienated by the liberal mainstream which. Milton Friedman, a well-known conservative economist, used to refer to himself as a liberal. However, as the term liberal became more and more synonymous with "big governments," free-marketeers had to distinguish themselves by using the word "classical liberal" and "libertarian."
This is a good point because I don't believe liberal ideals necessarily mean a big hand by the government (thus conservative am I). I think the difference isn't the Liberalism but the means by which we get there.

I still don't understand why some liberals can't see how taxing religious people and using the money to set up a secular school isn't infringing on the freedom of life choices for the religious. Now I'm not advocating organized prayer in school, but I think many liberals just have a bad attitude towards people who may be slightly oppressed by thier precious social-engineering schemes.
Well I think here that its more important not to tax people in the name of a religion where the beliefs of one religion will benefit at the expense of another religion. Like if taxes went to refurbishing confessionals for Catholic churches lol. I think i'd prefer using universal to secular because secular implies that it is contrary to a particular religion in the first place.

I agree though modern Liberals have to realize that certain liberal issues that arise which seem perfectly legitimate when not viewing them from a particular conservative context, either contradict or threaten some conservative ideals and to that end need to respect a conservative perspective when evaluating the issue. The same can be said of conservatives though in acknowleging change. IE The Vatican needs to get with the 21st century program ;).

Honestly I think there's alot of blind use of both Conservatism and Liberalism in that the words have lost their meaning and transformed into issue drivin categorizations of convenience. When I claim to be conservative, I do so specifically based on the values that I was brought up with regarding religion, the economy and so forth. I in fact have liberal beliefs (as do I think most of us) but they tend not to outweigh my conservative beliefs or don't contradict my conservative beliefs.

Bash away dude. I'm sure my opinion is worth bashing ;)
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I actually do consider myself a conservative. Most of the self-described conservatives I know have beliefs similar to mine whereas most self-decribed liberals do not. There are plenty exceptions, though - so I just want people to understand that "conservative" has little meaning without placing it in the proper context of your philosophy. For example, what am I trying to conserve?
- The constitution
- Our Bill of Rights (yes, including the second ammenment)
- Our property rights
- Our sovereignty, perhaps

Then again, there are also things that I don't want to conserve. Any existing inequality before the law should not be preserved. That covers the possible charge that I want a "ruling class," or that I want to preserve the "ruling class." Some conservatives do believe in laws to protect tradition. I don't, but if I see government attacking our traditional values through inequality before the law, then I'm all over it.

There are many ways in which most conservatives, I think, would like change. Most conservatives support scientific innovation, for example. There are counterexamples on both sides. I think that your assessment of "open-mindedness" is fair, but I've met too many left wingers who would say to my face "I would never be friends with a conservative" while assuming that I was one of them. That's just my experience.

I don't think its a problem for people to hold onto a traditional lifestyle so long as they respect the liberty of others to do otherwise. Some people might say that I'm too closed-minded because I stay away from drugs, believe in God, etc., but I don't care. There are also many people who are upset about content in movies and video games, and unfortunately some of these people want to ban it from the rest of us.

Crispy said:
I don't believe liberal ideals necessarily mean a big hand by the government (thus conservative am I). I think the difference isn't the Liberalism but the means by which we get there.
To build on this, I think that while liberals and converatives in America share some of the same basic principals, there are two different schools of thought on how to improve society. The liberals lean more towards central planning while conservatives believe that change can occur through the small, decentralize decisions. I'm refering to what's true nowadays, and I'm also generalizing a bit.

Crispy said:
Well I think here that its more important not to tax people in the name of a religion where the beliefs of one religion will benefit at the expense of another religion. Like if taxes went to refurbishing confessionals for Catholic churches lol. I think i'd prefer using universal to secular because secular implies that it is contrary to a particular religion in the first place.
Right. If we're going to have a public, tax-payer funded school, we have to do the best we can to open up to everyone. However, there are also some people who are going to be left out. I think they deserve a refund if they decide not to use the public school, even if we consider them "nuts," which they may well be.

Otherwise, we are telling people to accept our lifestyle, or pay a little fine.

To me the choice is between:
1) Having one source decide what is right and wrong
2) Having everyone decide for themselves.

In option 2, some people will make mistakes, even bad ones. However, option 1 will curtail our freedom and if the leaders make mistakes, then we're totally screwed.
 

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Connecticutter said:
I actually do consider myself a conservative. Most of the self-described conservatives I know have beliefs similar to mine whereas most self-decribed liberals do not. There are plenty exceptions, though - so I just want people to understand that "conservative" has little meaning without placing it in the proper context of your philosophy. For example, what am I trying to conserve?
- The constitution
- Our Bill of Rights (yes, including the second ammenment)
- Our property rights
- Our sovereignty, perhaps
I think that's an great way of putting it. And we can acknowlege some of the pre-dominant Conservative "contexts" being Conserving Religious Values, Conserving Economic/Capitalist principles and pre-"new deal era" government expansion as the seemingly high priority ones in the republican party nowadays. Incidentally most of which I believe as well.

Then again, there are also things that I don't want to conserve. Any existing inequality before the law should not be preserved. That covers the possible charge that I want a "ruling class," or that I want to preserve the "ruling class." Some conservatives do believe in laws to protect tradition. I don't, but if I see government attacking our traditional values through inequality before the law, then I'm all over it.
I think I might view this slightly different although I do agree with these points. I subscribe to the idea, as I'm sure you do, of equal opportunity allowing for anyone to achieve financial, religious and social success which depending on how much one exploits the opportunity affords them the ability to rise within that opportunity's structure. For instance a self made entrepreneur achieving finincial success would ultimately elevate him /her in such as way as to belong to a different class (for lack of a better term) financially. Hopefully not some elitist mindset but more the guy who can play more golf them some other lifestyles if you follow my meaning.

I do believe that we all should be treated equally under the law. Like OJ really needed to go to Jail from the way I saw it. Any other typical guy i'd bet would've spent jail time for that whole thing. lol

There are many ways in which most conservatives, I think, would like change. Most conservatives support scientific innovation, for example. There are counterexamples on both sides. I think that your assessment of "open-mindedness" is fair, but I've met too many left wingers who would say to my face "I would never be friends with a conservative" while assuming that I was one of them. That's just my experience.
[/QOTE]

Yea I hear ya, I call those guys a$$holes lol. I'm a pretty cool republican, extremely open minded to other points of view and actually my fiance is a very liberal democrat. We have some good blowouts though ;)

I think to a large degerr its the Religious Conservatives that are the activists adverse to certain scientific innovation and theories because much of it tends to discredit or redefine religious doctrine like the evolution arguments, stem cell research arguments and things like that.

I don't think its a problem for people to hold onto a traditional lifestyle so long as they respect the liberty of others to do otherwise. Some people might say that I'm too closed-minded because I stay away from drugs, believe in God, etc., but I don't care. There are also many people who are upset about content in movies and video games, and unfortunately some of these people want to ban it from the rest of us.
Definitely, I think tradition is extremely important whether it be moral, family, religious or other philosophies of the like. Being raised Lutheran, I have been confronted with many moral dilenmas that without my religious up-bringing I might no have had a good basis with which I could understand the dilemnas and potential resolutions.

To build on this, I think that while liberals and converatives in America share some of the same basic principals, there are two different schools of thought on how to improve society. The liberals lean more towards central planning while conservatives believe that change can occur through the small, decentralize decisions. I'm refering to what's true nowadays, and I'm also generalizing a bit.
Exacto. I think this point speaks directly to Social Democatic thought where centralized government social reforms should address the Social issues of the day as opposed to allowing these social reform efforts to happen through private organizations, like Religious organizations, private business that address social needs and like you said, decentralized perhaps leaving the job to state legislation in order to implement such social reform in areas where the constituency demands it instead of Federal legislation creating rules for all to adhere to.

Right. If we're going to have a public, tax-payer funded school, we have to do the best we can to open up to everyone. However, there are also some people who are going to be left out. I think they deserve a refund if they decide not to use the public school, even if we consider them "nuts," which they may well be.
Otherwise, we are telling people to accept our lifestyle, or pay a little fine.
Yep, I think it would be fare and actually I think is practiced in some counties down here in Florida (I might be wrong though) where sending your children to private school offers you either tax credits or deductions which would serve that purpose. Yea i think they're nuts too, I went to public school and if I picked up anything there it was diversity and acceptance that the private schools in my area didn't have. As a matter of fact when i was in HS we had a swarm of catholic school folks flocking to our campus to hang out for that reason alone lol.


To me the choice is between:
1) Having one source decide what is right and wrong
2) Having everyone decide for themselves.

In option 2, some people will make mistakes, even bad ones. However, option 1 will curtail our freedom and if the leaders make mistakes, then we're totally screwed.
True enough. I'm all for the government just leaving me the f**k alone to do what I wanna do in so far as what I want to do doesn't adversly affect or deny others the right to persue what they want to do.

Good discussions man.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Crispy said:
As I understand todays definitions of Liberal and Conservative

Liberalism:

Political Ideology advocating the ability of the individual to realize his full potential (quote from encyclopedia Encarta). This ideology transformed itself through 20th century into social reform such as Federal Unemployment insurance, Social Security and the growth of Trade unions to limit the exploitation of the industrial work force by Business Owners. These factors being brought on by the great depression, early 20th century Monopoly's and "Robber Barrons." Its often been associated with Socialism and Communism due to the belief that government should be directly involved in the regulation and distribution of commodities / services etc. that serve to sustain and enable individuals to realize their potential in society. (Not bashing it as socialism or communism here mind you just observing the reasoning)

By its definition it would also therefor advocate the protection of civil liberties as a primary goal which has lead to debates over the patriot act where civil liberties may be compromised in favor of other national interests.

Conserveratism:

Conservatism is the ideal of curbing rapid change and inovation in favor of maitaining balance and order (also Encarta). Modern conservative ideology as I understand it seeks to limit Government involvement in Business as was the situation prior to the 20th century and conserve original Capitalist non inter-ference policy. It also seeks to limit social reform where either religious or ecomic principles must be compromised in order to conserve those principles. It also seeks to limit government participation in social reform in favor of social reform activities being persued in the private sector thus conserving principles of capitalism and limited government. Debates over Healthcare, abortion and stem-cell research nowadays resemble these arguments.

I think i get it but feel free to bash me :)

I'm not sure why Liberalism and Conservatism are applied to our anti-war, pro-war sentiment with the exception of the fact that Social reform and Civil rights often need to be compromised in order to conduct military campaigns.

Conservatively speaking I would think Conservatives are pro war because they preserve the idea vested in the creation of our constitution that one of our federal governments primary roles is to interact with the international community and as such favor's federal government activities of International interest over Internal, especially social, interests. It seems though that the pro-war anti-war sentiment is split down this line none the less.

I prefer to use pro-war / anti-war to liberal or conservatives to be accurate.
I think I am a conservative apostate and an unfaithful liberal.
:confused:
 

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
lol, I call myself a liberal, or a libertarian, or an anarchist, depending on the situation.

I'm against the death penalty
I'm opposed to gun control
I'm opposed to drug prohibition
I was initially for the war in Iraq, and now I'm opposed
I supported Bush in 2000, and Nader in 2004
I am for gay marriage
I am ok with abortion up until viability
I am for restrained government spending
I am opposed to the torture going on in the war on terror on our behalf
I hate Bush
I believe in free markets
I believe in gradually moving towards privatizing social welfare.
I am opposed to affirmative action based on race/gender/whatever
I'd say to be more accurate with where you stand you should ask yourself if your position on certain issues is motivated by Liberal Ideology. Also I think you'd also make the distinction here between "Liberalism" and "Socialism" in that promoting the government regulation and management of Social policy like welfare and healthcare would be constitued as socialist in character and often by extension can be considered liberal because its end is to remove constraints on citizens that could inhibit their ability to realize their own potential.

For example pro-gay marriage is a liberal stance because it advocates modifying the original (conservative) definition of marriage in favor of extending benefits to gay couples.

While privitizing Healthcare would constitute a "non-socialist" perspective of an issue that conservatives and liberals both have an interest in.

Your reasons for hating bush would be more of an indicator of whether your liberal there. If its because he's neglecting or opposing liberal positions (ie gay marriage) then you can say you liberal motivations to hate him.

I guess the important factor in determining which ideology you belong to is which issues you are for and against and "also" what motivates you to be for or against them.
 

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Crispy said:
I'd say to be more accurate with where you stand you should ask yourself if your position on certain issues is motivated by Liberal Ideology. Also I think you'd also make the distinction here between "Liberalism" and "Socialism" in that promoting the government regulation and management of Social policy like welfare and healthcare would be constitued as socialist in character and often by extension can be considered liberal because its end is to remove constraints on citizens that could inhibit their ability to realize their own potential.

For example pro-gay marriage is a liberal stance because it advocates modifying the original (conservative) definition of marriage in favor of extending benefits to gay couples.

While privitizing Healthcare would constitute a "non-socialist" perspective of an issue that conservatives and liberals both have an interest in.

Your reasons for hating bush would be more of an indicator of whether your liberal there. If its because he's neglecting or opposing liberal positions (ie gay marriage) then you can say you liberal motivations to hate him.

I guess the important factor in determining which ideology you belong to is which issues you are for and against and "also" what motivates you to be for or against them.
I don't hate Bush, I'm pro gay marriage, against the death penalty, for gun control, and semi-socialized medicine....and legalization of drugs. I don't have to agree with everything the man does. I never vote for a candidate.... I vote against someone.

I think it's possible to be motivated by both ideologies.
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
As for the origin, it all goes back to the glorious French Revolution. Those who opposed the monarchy were Liberal, and those who backed him were conservatives.

Parlimentary partisans in the French Revolution would sit on the left if they were liberal, and the right in they were conservative. Hence, left-wing and right-wing.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
V.I. Lenin said:
As for the origin, it all goes back to the glorious French Revolution. Those who opposed the monarchy were Liberal, and those who backed him were conservatives.

Parlimentary partisans in the French Revolution would sit on the left if they were liberal, and the right in they were conservative. Hence, left-wing and right-wing.
Thanks for bringing this up. However, I don't see how the left-right divide of the French revolution applies to the American divide today. There is no monarchy to speak of, and no one wants to bring in a monarchy. If I were around during the French Revolution, I'd be on the left, but I'd also strongly dissent against some of the tactics that were being used by the left at that time. Nowadays, my views are considered conservative (although maybe in Europe I'd still be considered a liberal - I'm not sure how it works over there).
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Oh I know, It was in response to Arch Enemy's..Enemies? Yeah..in response to his statement
Not too sure as the origin though.
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
MiamiFlorida said:
I've alwas wondered why people classify themselves as "conservative", "liberal", "moderate", etc....and what criteria they use.

Any examples?
Liberal ='s

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. (note* the us was founded on these principles, but today lacks the moral fiber to truly live up to those ideals)

I recently took a test that placed me in the liberal/centrist spectrum of political ideology. I do believe that a man/woman is a poor judge in his/her own case. That being said, I do believe in welfare, social security, and free health care.

You are not alone in your confusion. Many people, including myself have had a tough time defining themselves as x, y, or z. In the past I have been opposed to labeling, because I thought that implyed a narrowminded approach to looking at things. However, when it comes to uniting, and organizing, defining your affiliations play a key role. It helps you to carry a torch, and promote a cause. Simultaneously, defining yourself allows people to get a sense of your character, without being struck with confusion as to your motives. There are many pro's to using certain terms to define yourself. At the end the day you are who you are, regardless of the names used to describe your ideology. But I think it's just human nature to feel comfortable having a term to represent the inherent ideas, ethics, and values that live within the name.
 

TJS0110

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties


Not right or left, there cool like that. Why cant political parties actualy stick to there ideas?
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hear hear!

I am a Liberatarian but in reality, libertarians are the true liberals. How can you claim to be liberal, when you are only liberal on social issues, but not on economic issues?

How can you claim to be liberal, when you don't believe in the right of the INDIVDUAL to generate their own living, with minimal government interference?
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Great discussion.

Most modern mainstream conservatives now would have been classified 'liberals' (i.e. classic liberals) a century ago. They seem to believe that the world can be a better place and push for that while ever conscious of not fixing what isn't broke and not throwing the baby out with the bathwater; evenso they progress through trial and error, setbacks and screw ups. And modern liberals are more like the typical conservative of a century ago with subtle or overt contempt for all who do not share their particular ideology and world view even to the point of punishing all who deviate from it.

In truth none of us are probably all conservative or all liberal these days, but the definitions are useful to express a particular modern political and social ideology. Condensed to its simplest form, "Conservatives" generally hold a more or less standard set of values that include a strong defense, nationalism, patriotism, pro life, pro traditional family, smaller government, pro inalienable rights of the people, and power to the private sector. Liberals are more or less anti-establishment, nontraditional, social activists, pro abortion, pacifists, pro global community, and they honestly believe that it is the duty and responsibility of government to address, regulate, mandate, forbid, and/or mandate virtually all aspects of human existence. Each of us, at different times in our life, probably fit on one side or the other on any given point.

Even as I write this I can almost feel some bristling and thinking about their rebuttals. :smile:
 

TJS0110

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Australianlibertarian said:
Hear hear!

I am a Liberatarian but in reality, libertarians are the true liberals. How can you claim to be liberal, when you are only liberal on social issues, but not on economic issues?

How can you claim to be liberal, when you don't believe in the right of the INDIVDUAL to generate their own living, with minimal government interference?
Actualy arent liberals,like democrats,for heavy government?
 

TJS0110

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Location
Missouri
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I Like Being Libretarian, Becuase Than I Can Make Fun Of Democrats And Republicans
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
TJS0110 said:
Actualy arent liberals,like democrats,for heavy government?
I am a "liberal" so to speak, but definitely not a Democrat. I think that big business needs to keep their dirty little paws out of the government. Powerful lobbys sponsored by (MNC's) multinational corporations, and other large business have undermined the power of congress to act on the peoples best interests. Where before the dilemma was government stifling competition, today the roles are reversed. I feel that a government has vested intrest in social welfare, because this creates a sort of dependancy on their exisitence. It is a certain way to keep the poor from wanting to overthrow the system, thus promoting civil order. I also believe the media needs to be reformed, because it suffers the same fate as our government. The media is a mere extension of corporate interest. We are so blinded and bombarded with advertisements, that we have no perception or true understanding of how we are really percieved by the rest of the world. Consequently, we have no idea what bills, amendments, agendas, etc are before congress unless we go out of our way to find out. This is a diservice to all americans who work 9-5 (often longer), to come home to a trivial newscast that merely ditracts them from matters which will ultimately affect their lives, and the genarations that follow. Are company's outsourcing many decent jobs as we speak? Yes. Do I think that the government should put tough regulations on outsourcing? Yes. These are not the jobs that americans shun like dishwashing jobs. I am talking about white collar sales and customer service jobs. Dell is a major example. If you think you're buying an american name brand when you buy Dell, you are duped by their advertisements. Thier service and support (as are most pc manufacturers) are located in India, and the Phillipines. This is where they'll eventually move all of their sales positions as well. It's also where the computers are built. If you see an address on the box that says it originated in the US, it's because they have distribution centers that act as a buffer between the manufacturer and the consumer. The reason companys are outsourcing is because a foreigner will work harder than you, longer than you, and more competively than you, and for less money.

I also support alternative energy, such as solar, and wind as opposed to petroleum and coal. I believe in better public transportation systems that can reach even the rural areas of america. I feel that a two party system no longer reflects the diversity of american political ideology. I think that when civics is taught in high-school, that children studying for the exam need to know more about alternative political party's. I am anti-war, anti-bush and pro-education. I believe abortion is a personal affair, and none of the governments business. I don't believe in the draft. I think people should be able to sign up for the military if they so choose. I am for government sponsored inner-city attention to education, and rehabilitation. I am also pro-rehabilitation for criminals. While criminals who prove beyond rehabilitation will find themselves in harsher conditions. The death penalty is fine with me, as long as due process of law has been achieved. I am sure most reasonable people will agree, torture is wrong. It is outlawed in our constitution, and therefore should not be practiced during war times, or otherwise. Lastly, I will say again that GWB is a criminal. He is responsible for thousands of deaths both american and foreign. I hope that our people will have the resolve to make an example out of him, for all future presidential hopefulls. So, that our citizens reputations will not be marred all over the world.
 
Last edited:

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
ban.the.electoral.college said:
Liberal ='s

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. (note* the us was founded on these principles, but today lacks the moral fiber to truly live up to those ideals)

I recently took a test that placed me in the liberal/centrist spectrum of political ideology. I do believe that a man/woman is a poor judge in his/her own case. That being said, I do believe in welfare, social security, and free health care.

You are not alone in your confusion. Many people, including myself have had a tough time defining themselves as x, y, or z. In the past I have been opposed to labeling, because I thought that implyed a narrowminded approach to looking at things. However, when it comes to uniting, and organizing, defining your affiliations play a key role. It helps you to carry a torch, and promote a cause. Simultaneously, defining yourself allows people to get a sense of your character, without being struck with confusion as to your motives. There are many pro's to using certain terms to define yourself. At the end the day you are who you are, regardless of the names used to describe your ideology. But I think it's just human nature to feel comfortable having a term to represent the inherent ideas, ethics, and values that live within the name.
Very interesting. You make some good points.

I think deep down we portray ourselves as being the way we want other people to see us.

And I think there's bigotry, prejudice and intolerance no matter where you fall in the political spectrum.
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
MiamiFlorida said:
Very interesting. You make some good points.

I think deep down we portray ourselves as being the way we want other people to see us.

And I think there's bigotry, prejudice and intolerance no matter where you fall in the political spectrum.

Yes, this is true.
 
Top Bottom