Defining conservative vs liberal in america today

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 11, 2007
66,975
32,322
2,330
Desert Southwest USA
In thread after thread it seems that eventually somebody will throw out 'conservative' or 'liberal and/or progressive' as perjorative terms. The mud slinging that generally follows when that happens will invariably provide an incorrect definition of each.

Perhaps we can consider and discuss typical definitions from this that I received in my e-mail earlier. Would you agree or disagree with one or more or all of these statements?

TO WIT:

American Liberals are more tolerant of and prefer more government control to regulate the activities and choices of the people.
American Conservatives are less tolerant of and prefer as little government control as reasonable to regulate the activities and choices of the people.

American Liberals seek more equal distribution of wealth.
American Conservatives seek more merit distribution of wealth.

American Liberals
seek less dependence by the needy on private charity.
American Conservatives seek less dependence by the needy on government charity.

American Liberals look more to the Federal government to address social concerns of the citizens.
American Conservatives more to local government and individuals to address social concerns of the citizens

American Liberals believe in tax the rich to distribute to the poor.
American Conservatives believe in all citizens bearing an equal proportionate share of the burden.

American Liberals see themselves more as citizens of the world.
American Conservatives see themselves more as citizens of America.

American Liberals rarely define what they think in specific terms.
American Conservatives regularly specify what Conservatives think in specific terms.

American Liberals generally see it as the duty of the Federal government to establish the social contract for all.
American Conservatives generally want the Federal government to protect and defend the rights of the people and otherwise leave it up to the people to govern themselves and establish the society they wish to have.

Okay that's it for the email. Others may come up with additional comparisons, but please, can we keep the trollisms and food fights to a mininum? We don't have to agree with each other's point of view, but we don't have to denigrate each other in order to say that.
 
Here's one I got in my email:
Father/Daughter Talk
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of "the redistribution of wealth."

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative party."
 
:) I've seen various versions of that PC and it still impresses me as what 'conservatism' is all about.

I think the Conservative begins with valuing reward for honorable productivity and allowing consequences for a choice not to be productive. The emphasis is not necessarily rejection of a hand up, but on the necessity of the individual taking responsibility for his own productivity.

I think the Liberal begins with concern for the nonproductive, criticism for the unfairness of factors that made him/her non productive, and emphasis on correcting those factors. The motivation of the nonproductive is immaterial and only external factors should be the concern.
 
American Liberals are more tolerant of and prefer more government control to regulate the activities and choices of the people.
American Conservatives are less tolerant of and prefer as little government control as reasonable to regulate the activities and choices of the people.

BULLSHIT. It depends on the the activity.

American Liberals seek more equal distribution of wealth.
American Conservatives seek more merit distribution of wealth.

BULLSHIT. American Liberals seek a more FAIR distribution of wealth. American Conservatives seek to let the free market distribute wealth, regardless of fairness or merit. They will tell you that the free market is wholly based on merit but they are wrong.

American Liberals seek less dependence by the needy on private charity.
American Conservatives seek less dependence by the needy on government charity.

BULLSHIT. Anyone with a functioning brain and/or a beating heart would prefer to minimize anyone's dependence on either.

American Liberals look more to the Federal government to address social concerns of the citizens.
American Conservatives more to local government and individuals to address social concerns of the citizens

I don't know what is meant by "social concerns"

American Liberals believe in tax the rich to distribute to the poor.
American Conservatives believe in all citizens bearing an equal proportionate share of the burden.

BULLSHIT, but only because of the biased wording. Liberals prefer more progressive taxation, Conservatives prefer more regressive taxation.

American Liberals see themselves more as citizens of the world.
American Conservatives see themselves more as citizens of America.

BULLSHIT. Liberals consider themselves both citizens of America and the world. Conservatives see themselves as ONLY citizens of America.

American Liberals rarely define what they think in specific terms.
American Conservatives regularly specify what Conservatives think in specific terms.

BULLSHIT. Neither is big on specifics.

American Liberals generally see it as the duty of the Federal government to establish the social contract for all.
American Conservatives generally want the Federal government to protect and defend the rights of the people and otherwise leave it up to the people to govern themselves and establish the society they wish to have.

WTF is "the social contract for all" supposed to mean?
 
Prolly the single most appealing theme in conservative thought is "rewarding merit". Only a dumbass would insist there are no undesirable "sense of entitlement" disincentives from some government programs.

However, ladies.....

Here's a few things most conservatives seem unwilling or unable to digest and accept:

* Upward mobility is a highly desirable, highly American value that is fast disappearing as a reality.

* Some people are temporarily or permanently in distress. A society as rich as ours that allows its poor children and elderly etc. to go hungry is in danger of moral bankruptcy.

* "What you earn" as a wealthy person is a function of, in part, government services and the existence of the middle and lower classes. It is a matter subject to debate, not a fixed and observable number.



 
Prolly the single most appealing theme in conservative thought is "rewarding merit". Only a dumbass would insist there are no undesirable "sense of entitlement" disincentives from some government programs.

However, ladies.....

Here's a few things most conservatives seem unwilling or unable to digest and accept:

* Upward mobility is a highly desirable, highly American value that is fast disappearing as a reality.

* Some people are temporarily or permanently in distress. A society as rich as ours that allows its poor children and elderly etc. to go hungry is in danger of moral bankruptcy.

* "What you earn" as a wealthy person is a function of, in part, government services and the existence of the middle and lower classes. It is a matter subject to debate, not a fixed and observable number.




Why is upward mobility disappearing? Is it coincidence that it is happening with an increasingly 'welfare' and 'entitlement' driven society?

No one, certainly not conservatives, seeks to ignore children and the elderly going hungry. We just happen to believe that there are better, more efficient, local ways of solving such issues.

No one - not an individual who breaks into the home of another and steals, or a government to does it legally - has the right to take what someone has worked for.

Not hard. Everyone in this country deserves the same opportunities. What they choose to do with those opportunities is their business. If someone chooses to squander their education, that is not my problem.
 
Last edited:
First, thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to the specific points.

American Liberals are more tolerant of and prefer more government control to regulate the activities and choices of the people.
American Conservatives are less tolerant of and prefer as little government control as reasonable to regulate the activities and choices of the people.

BULLSHIT. It depends on the the activity.
Well, if it depends on the activity, then it can't be all bullshit can it? Note that the statement didn't say tolerant or intolerant but rather said more tolerant and less tolerant. That gives us some wiggle room. Put 'environment' or 'global warming' in place of 'actitivies and choices' and I think you'll see what I mean.

American Liberals seek more equal distribution of wealth.
American Conservatives seek more merit distribution of wealth.

BULLSHIT. American Liberals seek a more FAIR distribution of wealth. American Conservatives seek to let the free market distribute wealth, regardless of fairness or merit. They will tell you that the free market is wholly based on merit but they are wrong.
Okay, please define 'fair distribution of wealth' if you prefer that to 'more equal distribution of wealth'. What difference do you see in those two terms?

American Liberals seek less dependence by the needy on private charity.
American Conservatives seek less dependence by the needy on government charity.

BULLSHIT. Anyone with a functioning brain and/or a beating heart would prefer to minimize anyone's dependence on either.
Well that wasn't an option was it? So do you favor the government taking on the resonsibility or do you see it as more the responsibility of the individual contributor, i.e. private charity?

American Liberals look more to the Federal government to address social concerns of the citizens.
American Conservatives more to local government and individuals to address social concerns of the citizens

I don't know what is meant by "social concerns"
"Social concerns" was not defined, but I took it that the intent was to say that the Liberal puts much more trust and faith in the Federal government to address more social concerns than it puts trust and faith in the local government and individual. Use education or healthcare as examples, for instance.

American Liberals believe in tax the rich to distribute to the poor.
American Conservatives believe in all citizens bearing an equal proportionate share of the burden.

BULLSHIT, but only because of the biased wording. Liberals prefer more progressive taxation, Conservatives prefer more regressive taxation.
Conservatives define 'progressive taxation as one component of 'tax the rich to distribute to the poor'. The fact is that the Federal government is mostly only taxing the upper 50% of wage earners at all. Conservatives see that as an unacceptable and dangerous condition. Liberals are more likely to favor it.

American Liberals see themselves more as citizens of the world.
American Conservatives see themselves more as citizens of America.

BULLSHIT. Liberals consider themselves both citizens of America and the world. Conservatives see themselves as ONLY citizens of America.

I will accept that as your point of view. Perhaps if the thread catches on, this will be discussed in more detail. I took the statements to indicate that liberals are more likely to look to the rest of the world as role models for what America should be. Conservatives are more likely to look to America for what the rest of the world should be.

American Liberals rarely define what they think in specific terms.
American Conservatives regularly specify what Conservatives think in specific terms.

BULLSHIT. Neither is big on specifics.
Here I disagree. I have rarely ever found a liberal willing to define liberalism. Conservatives don't even hesitate to define conservatism.

American Liberals generally see it as the duty of the Federal government to establish the social contract for all.
American Conservatives generally want the Federal government to protect and defend the rights of the people and otherwise leave it up to the people to govern themselves and establish the society they wish to have.

WTF is "the social contract for all" supposed to mean?

I understand the social contract to be the values, principles, and ideals by which a people governs itself. So I took this statement to indicate that liberals look to the government to govern the people. Conservatives do not want to be governed but want their rights secured and then be left alone to govern themselves.
 
Prolly the single most appealing theme in conservative thought is "rewarding merit". Only a dumbass would insist there are no undesirable "sense of entitlement" disincentives from some government programs.

However, ladies.....

Here's a few things most conservatives seem unwilling or unable to digest and accept:

* Upward mobility is a highly desirable, highly American value that is fast disappearing as a reality.

* Some people are temporarily or permanently in distress. A society as rich as ours that allows its poor children and elderly etc. to go hungry is in danger of moral bankruptcy.

* "What you earn" as a wealthy person is a function of, in part, government services and the existence of the middle and lower classes. It is a matter subject to debate, not a fixed and observable number.


Why is upward mobility disappearing? Is it coincidence that it is happening with an increasingly 'welfare' and 'entitlement' driven society?

Well, I'm not sure CG. I think the degradation in public education has been a contributing factor. Loss of well-paying factory jobs and shipping out jobs in general. BTW, "welfare" has decreased, not increased. The lifetime ADFC support system has been more or less dismantled. What other "entitlement" programs do you think need to be modified or deleted? I could go for a meaningful conversation about SSDI -- especially SSDI for children.

No one, certainly not conservatives, seeks to ignore children and the elderly going hungry. We just happen to believe that there are better, more efficient, local ways of solving such issues.

Oh really? Cuz hon, sitting in Ohio I just don't see any "state or local solutions". We have terrible hunger problems here....and not all of it is urban.

No one - not an individual who breaks into the home of another and steals, or a government to does it legally - has the right to take what someone has worked for.

This is a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. When a Ken Lay, Warren Buffet or Bill Gates makes a gazillion dollars, how much has he "earned"? How much did he "earn" all by himself...without government services, without the contributions of workers, without the middle and lower classes? I just don't happen to think he has "earned" as much as you might...but neither of us is "wrong".

Not hard. Everyone in this country deserves the same opportunities. What they choose to do with those opportunities is their business. If someone chooses to squander their education, that is not my problem.
This is a lovely sentiment, but only a fool would argue there is no American elite...or underclass. I am not in favor of attempts to "level the playing field"...I don't even think it is possible. Instead, I favor efforts to expand the middle class and support upward mobility.
 
foxfyre wrote:

I understand the social contract to be the values, principles, and ideals by which a people governs itself. So I took this statement to indicate that liberals look to the government to govern the people. Conservatives do not want to be governed but want their rights secured and then be left alone to govern themselves.

foxfyre, this is a nice sentient, but what does it mean? Conservatives seem to be the ones who oppose legalizing drugs; oppose gay marriage; oppose legal abortion; etc. On social issues, most self-proclaimed conservatives seem to be almighty officious intermeddlers of the first order.
 
But the question is WHY? WHY is there an American elite and an American underclass Madelyn? Especailly considering that 10 trillion dollars have now been expended on the "war on poverty" and the poor/underclass/chronically unemployed/chronically undereducated etc. etc. etc. are still with us in large groups?

Would that be the case if we had not implemented the 'war on poverty' that utilizes mostly liberal concepts/values but had rather implemented conservative concepts/values?

I think that absolutely has to be part of the debate.
 
foxfyre wrote:

I understand the social contract to be the values, principles, and ideals by which a people governs itself. So I took this statement to indicate that liberals look to the government to govern the people. Conservatives do not want to be governed but want their rights secured and then be left alone to govern themselves.

foxfyre, this is a nice sentient, but what does it mean? Conservatives seem to be the ones who oppose legalizing drugs; oppose gay marriage; oppose legal abortion; etc. On social issues, most self-proclaimed conservatives seem to be almighty officious intermeddlers of the first order.

And this is different than opposing making things such as murder or incestuous marriage legal, how?

So if you as a liberal are against making incestuous marriage or murder legal, does that make you an 'intermeddler'?
 
I agree with you, foxfyre. As I mentioned, I'd be more than happy to discuss ending SSI for children...what "income" is being replaced for all these kidlets we're so anxious to label as "disabled"? And I'd be comfy with an elite as well as an underclass, so long as....

The middle class continued to expand or at least stay the same size proportionately, and

We could restore the upward mobility that existed in the US after WW II.

People do not have to have a reasonable chance to become wealthy before I'm content. They just need a reasonable chance to live decently.
 
I agree with you, foxfyre. As I mentioned, I'd be more than happy to discuss ending SSI for children...what "income" is being replaced for all these kidlets we're so anxious to label as "disabled"? And I'd be comfy with an elite as well as an underclass, so long as....

The middle class continued to expand or at least stay the same size proportionately, and

We could restore the upward mobility that existed in the US after WW II.

People do not have to have a reasonable chance to become wealthy before I'm content. They just need a reasonable chance to live decently.

Is not your 'upward mobility' dependent on your efforts, decisions, choices, persistence, etc? And with that, your 'upward mobility' is not something that can be given from the outside

People DO have a reasonable chance to live reasonably... and they are guaranteed the FREEDOM to do so... the freedom to both fail or succeed in doing so
 
foxfyre wrote:

I understand the social contract to be the values, principles, and ideals by which a people governs itself. So I took this statement to indicate that liberals look to the government to govern the people. Conservatives do not want to be governed but want their rights secured and then be left alone to govern themselves.

foxfyre, this is a nice sentient, but what does it mean? Conservatives seem to be the ones who oppose legalizing drugs; oppose gay marriage; oppose legal abortion; etc. On social issues, most self-proclaimed conservatives seem to be almighty officious intermeddlers of the first order.

And this is different than opposing making things such as murder or incestuous marriage legal, how?

So if you as a liberal are against making incestuous marriage or murder legal, does that make you an 'intermeddler'?

I would not see a belief that murder or incest should be legalized as either liberal nor conservative. Such would be anarchy that recognizes no human or individual or unalienable rights. And though I think American Conservatives have a much better understanding of unalienable rights than do Liberals--that speaks to my own ideological bias on this of course--I do think both equally do understand and agree on certain standards of what is and is not acceptable human conduct.

The same conflict applies in issues of abortion, gay marriage, parental rights, etc. etc. etc. on which a certain number of conservatives and a certain number of liberals could come down on either side of those issues.

I think it is the reason for the point of view and the method of addressing it that more accurately defines the conservative and liberal.
 
I agree with you, foxfyre. As I mentioned, I'd be more than happy to discuss ending SSI for children...what "income" is being replaced for all these kidlets we're so anxious to label as "disabled"? And I'd be comfy with an elite as well as an underclass, so long as....

The middle class continued to expand or at least stay the same size proportionately, and

We could restore the upward mobility that existed in the US after WW II.

People do not have to have a reasonable chance to become wealthy before I'm content. They just need a reasonable chance to live decently.

I'm all for everybody having a shot at upward mobility. I just believe that conservative values/ideals are the best way to restore that and/or accomplish that. I think liberal values/ideals have been tried for that and have failed. The intentions were often noble and commendable, but the unintended consequences were not.
 
foxfyre wrote in part:

I think it is the reason for the point of view and the method of addressing it that more accurately defines the conservative and liberal.

Not sure I follow you, miss. Do you mean liberals are more comfy with federal control while conservatives prefer local?
 
foxfyre, this is a nice sentient, but what does it mean? Conservatives seem to be the ones who oppose legalizing drugs; oppose gay marriage; oppose legal abortion; etc. On social issues, most self-proclaimed conservatives seem to be almighty officious intermeddlers of the first order.

And this is different than opposing making things such as murder or incestuous marriage legal, how?

So if you as a liberal are against making incestuous marriage or murder legal, does that make you an 'intermeddler'?

I would not see a belief that murder or incest should be legalized as either liberal nor conservative. Such would be anarchy that recognizes no human or individual or unalienable rights. And though I think American Conservatives have a much better understanding of unalienable rights than do Liberals--that speaks to my own ideological bias on this of course--I do think both equally do understand and agree on certain standards of what is and is not acceptable human conduct.

The same conflict applies in issues of abortion, gay marriage, parental rights, etc. etc. etc. on which a certain number of conservatives and a certain number of liberals could come down on either side of those issues.

I think it is the reason for the point of view and the method of addressing it that more accurately defines the conservative and liberal.

My point simply was that we DO set limits in law or what is legal... Saying that a conservative is an 'intermeddler' alone is disingenuous... all laws meddle on individuals or complete 'freedom'/anarchy
What many liberals don't like is drawing a line where some social activity they support is put on the side of 'illegal'
 
I agree with you, foxfyre. As I mentioned, I'd be more than happy to discuss ending SSI for children...what "income" is being replaced for all these kidlets we're so anxious to label as "disabled"? And I'd be comfy with an elite as well as an underclass, so long as....

The middle class continued to expand or at least stay the same size proportionately, and

We could restore the upward mobility that existed in the US after WW II.

People do not have to have a reasonable chance to become wealthy before I'm content. They just need a reasonable chance to live decently.

I'm all for everybody having a shot at upward mobility. I just believe that conservative values/ideals are the best way to restore that and/or accomplish that. I think liberal values/ideals have been tried for that and have failed. The intentions were often noble and commendable, but the unintended consequences were not.

Some liberal programs have failed, I'd agree. But foxfyre, I'm still waiting to hear what conservatives believe is a solution for childhood poverty, homeless veterans, hunger among the elderly, etc.
 
And this is different than opposing making things such as murder or incestuous marriage legal, how?

So if you as a liberal are against making incestuous marriage or murder legal, does that make you an 'intermeddler'?

I would not see a belief that murder or incest should be legalized as either liberal nor conservative. Such would be anarchy that recognizes no human or individual or unalienable rights. And though I think American Conservatives have a much better understanding of unalienable rights than do Liberals--that speaks to my own ideological bias on this of course--I do think both equally do understand and agree on certain standards of what is and is not acceptable human conduct.

The same conflict applies in issues of abortion, gay marriage, parental rights, etc. etc. etc. on which a certain number of conservatives and a certain number of liberals could come down on either side of those issues.

I think it is the reason for the point of view and the method of addressing it that more accurately defines the conservative and liberal.

My point simply was that we DO set limits in law or what is legal... Saying that a conservative is an 'intermeddler' alone is disingenuous... all laws meddle on individuals or complete 'freedom'/anarchy
What many liberals don't like is drawing a line where some social activity they support is put on the side of 'illegal'

I agree, Dave. We should parse down the number of laws and regulations in this country and repeal those that we don't need.

* Legalize drugs

* Release all nonviolent drug offenders in prison NOW

* Eliminate the death penalty

Which ones are YOU willing to repeal?
 
foxfyre wrote in part:

I think it is the reason for the point of view and the method of addressing it that more accurately defines the conservative and liberal.

Not sure I follow you, miss. Do you mean liberals are more comfy with federal control while conservatives prefer local?

Yes. That is a point I've argued on numerous occasions, and nobody has been able to talk me out of it yet. Actually nobody has tried. :)

I do think liberals are much more likely to encourage or support Federal laws to govern all activity, including local, than are conservatives. The drum I beat usually says that conservatives want the Federal government to enact such laws and regulation as is necessary to secure and protect our unalienable rights and then leave us alone to govern ourselves in whatever society we wish to form and maintain.

The few liberals who have waded in on this have usually agreed that they trust their federal representatives to govern better than they trust their state and local representatives.

In the broadest concept, I think conservatives do not wish to be governed. They want the ability and right to govern themselves and control their own destiny. I think liberals are more 'European' in that they look to a 'monarch' or central government to watch over them, take care of them, and personal freedoms become less important.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top