Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[007]

What do those terms mean to you?

For me, it is as follows...

Liberalism:

From a political perspective, it is a viewpoint or ideology associated with free speech, a free media, free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government (as opposed to private sector) in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are all each other's keepers.

From a social perspective, it is the opposite of conservatism. It's inclusive and seeks to ever widen the circle of what is in the "in" group. Our liberal impulse is what gave us abolition, civil rights and the rights of women to vote. Our liberal impulses are what make us human.

Davidson Loehr: "Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances."

Conservatism:

From a political perspective, conservative ideologies value established and traditional practices in politics and society. They prefer a strong and minimally regulated private-sector role over a government role in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are responsible for ourselves and for regulating ourselves in both business' and privately.

From a social perspective, Conservatism is also about protecting traditional social values and the status-quo. The status quo - what is defined as the "in group" is always updating. What was liberal and new, eventually becomes the status quo (the expanded "in group" to be protected. Civil rights, women's vote, etc expanded our "in group" into multi-colored, multi-gender. Conservatism protects stability in societies.

I see liberalism and conservatism somewhat holistically - comprising politics, culture, ethics and religion. I see it also as a balancing act - we can have a good society without both. If the pendulum swings to far in one direction we have chaos, it it is to far in the other we have stagnation.

Davison Loerh summed it up well in this article: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr

The questions for this topic are:

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

The rules are:

1. Leave political parties out of it, political parties change over time and don't necessarily reflect conservative or liberal values.

2. No ad homs or personal attacks - attack the argument not the speaker.

3. Light off topic banter is ok in small amounts, but lets not derail the thread.

There is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, in a liberals mind that would indicate they love FREEDOM, when they so ardently support a TYRANNICAL JUNIOR HITLER DICTATOR as president, period, end of story.

They GLEEFULLY give up their FREEDOM as if it were WORTHLESS, so long as it's OBAMA TAKING IT AWAY.

What is liberalism to you and what is conservatism to you? Can you fill us in without resorting to cheap political attacks? Looking at ideology here, not modern politics.

Where does freedom fit in and how do you define freedom?

There was nothing CHEAP about what I said, or was it an ATTACK. I simply stated a fact.

All you have to do is look at what is happening in this nation today, and who supports what. Obama is obviously an America hating, muslim coddling, muslim himself, ideolog, marxist, Alinsky following, Soros funded, radical that is in the process "FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING" America, when America didn't want or need to be transformed. So those supporting him, aka LIBERALS, must share his America hating views and agenda.

CONSERVATIVES on the other hand LOVE America, for what it was, what it is, and want it to REMAIN so.

Doesn't take a whole lot to figure that all out, as the vast majority of Americans at this point have.

What is freedom to you?

If you have to ask, then you are truly lost.

 

[Coyote]

What do those terms mean to you?

For me, it is as follows...

Liberalism:

From a political perspective, it is a viewpoint or ideology associated with free speech, a free media, free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government (as opposed to private sector) in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are all each other's keepers.

From a social perspective, it is the opposite of conservatism. It's inclusive and seeks to ever widen the circle of what is in the "in" group. Our liberal impulse is what gave us abolition, civil rights and the rights of women to vote. Our liberal impulses are what make us human.

Davidson Loehr: "Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances."

Conservatism:

From a political perspective, conservative ideologies value established and traditional practices in politics and society. They prefer a strong and minimally regulated private-sector role over a government role in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are responsible for ourselves and for regulating ourselves in both business' and privately.

From a social perspective, Conservatism is also about protecting traditional social values and the status-quo. The status quo - what is defined as the "in group" is always updating. What was liberal and new, eventually becomes the status quo (the expanded "in group" to be protected. Civil rights, women's vote, etc expanded our "in group" into multi-colored, multi-gender. Conservatism protects stability in societies.

I see liberalism and conservatism somewhat holistically - comprising politics, culture, ethics and religion. I see it also as a balancing act - we can have a good society without both. If the pendulum swings to far in one direction we have chaos, it it is to far in the other we have stagnation.

Davison Loerh summed it up well in this article: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr

The questions for this topic are:

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

The rules are:

1. Leave political parties out of it, political parties change over time and don't necessarily reflect conservative or liberal values.

2. No ad homs or personal attacks - attack the argument not the speaker.

3. Light off topic banter is ok in small amounts, but lets not derail the thread.

There is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, in a liberals mind that would indicate they love FREEDOM, when they so ardently support a TYRANNICAL JUNIOR HITLER DICTATOR as president, period, end of story.

They GLEEFULLY give up their FREEDOM as if it were WORTHLESS, so long as it's OBAMA TAKING IT AWAY.

What is liberalism to you and what is conservatism to you? Can you fill us in without resorting to cheap political attacks? Looking at ideology here, not modern politics.

Where does freedom fit in and how do you define freedom?

There was nothing CHEAP about what I said, or was it an ATTACK. I simply stated a fact.

All you have to do is look at what is happening in this nation today, and who supports what. Obama is obviously an America hating, muslim coddling, muslim himself, ideolog, marxist, Alinsky following, Soros funded, radical that is in the process "FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING" America, when America didn't want or need to be transformed. So those supporting him, aka LIBERALS, must share his America hating views and agenda.

CONSERVATIVES on the other hand LOVE America, for what it was, what it is, and want it to REMAIN so.

Doesn't take a whole lot to figure that all out, as the vast majority of Americans at this point have.

What is freedom to you?

If you have to ask, then you are truly lost.

Enlighten us then - in the spirit of conversation. Freedom means different things to different people and seems to be a core principle of American political conservatism.

 

[Pogo]

What do those terms mean to you?

For me, it is as follows...

Liberalism:

From a political perspective, it is a viewpoint or ideology associated with free speech, a free media, free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government (as opposed to private sector) in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are all each other's keepers.

From a social perspective, it is the opposite of conservatism. It's inclusive and seeks to ever widen the circle of what is in the "in" group. Our liberal impulse is what gave us abolition, civil rights and the rights of women to vote. Our liberal impulses are what make us human.

Davidson Loehr: "Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances."

Conservatism:

From a political perspective, conservative ideologies value established and traditional practices in politics and society. They prefer a strong and minimally regulated private-sector role over a government role in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are responsible for ourselves and for regulating ourselves in both business' and privately.

From a social perspective, Conservatism is also about protecting traditional social values and the status-quo. The status quo - what is defined as the "in group" is always updating. What was liberal and new, eventually becomes the status quo (the expanded "in group" to be protected. Civil rights, women's vote, etc expanded our "in group" into multi-colored, multi-gender. Conservatism protects stability in societies.

I see liberalism and conservatism somewhat holistically - comprising politics, culture, ethics and religion. I see it also as a balancing act - we can have a good society without both. If the pendulum swings to far in one direction we have chaos, it it is to far in the other we have stagnation.

Davison Loerh summed it up well in this article: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr

The questions for this topic are:

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

The rules are:

1. Leave political parties out of it, political parties change over time and don't necessarily reflect conservative or liberal values.

2. No ad homs or personal attacks - attack the argument not the speaker.

3. Light off topic banter is ok in small amounts, but lets not derail the thread.

I'd agree with most of the above except on Liberalism being for the strong role of government -- seems to me Liberalism sees government as a referee who steps in when necessary but otherwise stays out of the way, Laissez-faire is synonymous. I don't see that as a conservative trait at all. Capitalism then is a byproduct of Liberalism as an economic practice of laissez-faire.

Inasmuch as Liberalism spawned for the purpose of getting the People out from under the thumb of rule by royalty and the Church (the "First and Second Estates"), its focus and interest is on the People, as opposed to the State. Its most characteristic tenet is "all men are created equal" -- even if the Liberals who founded this country wrote that while falling short of it in practice.

Unfortunately its definition has been perverted for decades going back to the "Red Scare" where it was used as a guilt-by-association tactic to imply an association between Liberalism and commuism, since both overlap in some areas with leftism. This misassociation has left is an environment where few among the masses seem to understand that Liberalism is neither "left" nor "right" but is opposed by both, and that "leftism" is not "Liberalism".

My go-to example is usually: to say "all men are created equal" is Liberalism; to then try to force that into existence through Affirmative Action laws is leftism. Liberalism wouldn't force it; it would simply disallow laws that would discriminate or establish hierarchies.

Conservatism I think places a higher value on the State, as opposed to the (common) People. It prefers hierarchies and leans to authoritarianism.

Religion should not be a factor at all, in either one. In an earlier time when the Church was a kingmaker it had that role but we would hope those daze are gone forever. To this day I have yet to understand why Wikipedia entries on politicians include an entry on what the politician's religion is. Religion is and should remain an entirely private matter, period.

First thoughts.

 

[Pogo]

(Fleshing out above)... Since conservatism is a very general (more general than "liberal") term meaning to adhere to the status quo (resist change), what it means in practice changes with contemporary circumstances. When this country was founded the conservatism opposing Liberalism was Royalist, seeing the authority of the King/Church (the then-status quo) as the legitimate source of power. Now that that's out of the way modern conservatism seems to hold an affinity for the descendants of that King/Church, which is that faceless entity I call Corporatia. The common thread seems to be dependence on a strong, centralized source of power, as opposed to Liberalism's decentralized democratic distribution of power where it vests in the individual, collectively.

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

 

[Pogo]

What do those terms mean to you?

For me, it is as follows...

Liberalism:

From a political perspective, it is a viewpoint or ideology associated with free speech, a free media, free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government (as opposed to private sector) in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are all each other's keepers.

From a social perspective, it is the opposite of conservatism. It's inclusive and seeks to ever widen the circle of what is in the "in" group. Our liberal impulse is what gave us abolition, civil rights and the rights of women to vote. Our liberal impulses are what make us human.

Davidson Loehr: "Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances."

Conservatism:

From a political perspective, conservative ideologies value established and traditional practices in politics and society. They prefer a strong and minimally regulated private-sector role over a government role in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are responsible for ourselves and for regulating ourselves in both business' and privately.

From a social perspective, Conservatism is also about protecting traditional social values and the status-quo. The status quo - what is defined as the "in group" is always updating. What was liberal and new, eventually becomes the status quo (the expanded "in group" to be protected. Civil rights, women's vote, etc expanded our "in group" into multi-colored, multi-gender. Conservatism protects stability in societies.

I see liberalism and conservatism somewhat holistically - comprising politics, culture, ethics and religion. I see it also as a balancing act - we can have a good society without both. If the pendulum swings to far in one direction we have chaos, it it is to far in the other we have stagnation.

Davison Loerh summed it up well in this article: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr

The questions for this topic are:

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

The rules are:

1. Leave political parties out of it, political parties change over time and don't necessarily reflect conservative or liberal values.

2. No ad homs or personal attacks - attack the argument not the speaker.

3. Light off topic banter is ok in small amounts, but lets not derail the thread.

As was the case in another thread in this forum, it is important to distinguish between dictionary/encyclopedia definitions and modern vernacular and it important to note what part of the world we are in as that also affects the understanding of what the words mean.

From my perspective, the definition of late 18th, 19th, and early 20th Century American liberalism was very different from the liberalism as it is most commonly used and understood in modern day America. And modern day American conservatism is a very different animal from that of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th Centuries.

IMO, modern day American liberalism is generally synonymous with Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, and Political Class as those terms are generally understood in modern day America. All those terms can be used as pejorative and non pejorative terms.

The basic concept of modern day American liberalism is the use of government, especially a central government, to establish equality and fair play and justice for all. And to accomplish that equality, fair play, and justice, the tendency is for government to provide basic social services and there is much assent for at least some regulation of political influence, commerce and industry, speech, media, religion, education, etc. ahd ordering of what society should be.

Conversely, modern day American conservatism sharply deviates from modern day American liberalism even as the two ideologies sometimes merge in a single cause. Modern day conservatism is synonymous with Constitutional originalists, libertarianism (little "L"), classical liberalism, or sometimes paleoconservatism . These too can all be used in pejorative and non pejorative ways.

The basic concept of modern day conservatism is a central government strictly limited to its constitutional authority which is to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not just special interest groups), enact sufficient regulation so that the various states can function as one nation and not do violence to each other, and then to leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they see fit and form themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wish to have. Such, in the view of modern day American conservatism, is what liberty is.

Foxy and I have had this semantical squabble before about "Liberalism" meaning two different things then and now; she basically feels definitions change with the winds, whereas I stay put with where they're established. I like my words rooted on firm ground. I'm hyperconservative that way.


I suppose the reason for that is I'm just not willing to allow demagogues to come charging in and rearrange my lexicographical furniture just so they can air out their demagogic exercise bike. I'm hyperliberal that way.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The OP definitions are sound reasonable positions that a normal rational person would use for both liberalism and conservatism.

What we have in America today is an attempt to redefine both terms by those who seek to usurp the status quo and impose their own "new world order" that would be unrecognizable to those who embrace the OP definitions. The attempt to conflate liberalism with "statism" is patently absurd. The attempt to disguise libertarianism as conservatism is just outright delusional. Unfortunately we are witnessing both in America today.

Yes, I would much prefer to be debating with the likes of genuine conservative like the late William F Buckley jr. He was both smart and witty. A man who could form a cogent argument that was worthy of thinking about since it made sense. Alas there are no genuine conservatives of his kind to be found today. America is the poorer for that loss IMO.

This nation was founded upon the liberal principles of freedom and self determination. Since it's inception both of those liberal principles have been constantly expanded. Abolishing slavery, suffrage, social security, civil rights, healthcare and gay marriage are all major milestones marking the progress of liberalism in America.

No, we are never going to turn back the clock to the past because no one who has tasted freedom relinquishes it easily. Equally so we are not going to allow those who want to undo this liberal progress in the name of unfettered capitalist greed take them away either in the future.

The OP is correct that there is a balance between liberalism and conservatism but in order to achieve that you need to have a balanced view of reality first. It is never all one side to the detriment of the other. The balance is achieved through pragmatic compromises.

The Founding Fathers embraced this principle when they wrote a flawed Constitution that enabled slavery because they had an urgent pragmatic need for a union of states that came before the liberal concept of freedom for all men. So they included a mechanism to enable future generations to expand the rights in the Constitution and that has worked and is still working to this very day.

 

[IcebergSlim]

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

But what if "liberalism" chronologically precedes "socialism", or even "capitalism"?

Yo, you forgot Socialist Progressive!

"GTP"

Feel free to position it on the time line.....

 

[Pogo]

The OP definitions are sound reasonable positions that a normal rational person would use for both liberalism and conservatism.

What we have in America today is an attempt to redefine both terms by those who seek to usurp the status quo and impose their own "new world order" that would be unrecognizable to those who embrace the OP definitions. The attempt to conflate liberalism with "statism" is patently absurd. The attempt to disguise libertarianism as conservatism is just outright delusional. Unfortunately we are witnessing both in America today.

Yes, I would much prefer to be debating with the likes of genuine conservative like the late William F Buckley jr. He was both smart and witty. A man who could form a cogent argument that was worthy of thinking about since it made sense. Alas there are no genuine conservatives of his kind to be found today. America is the poorer for that loss IMO.

This nation was founded upon the liberal principles of freedom and self determination. Since it's inception both of those liberal principles have been constantly expanded. Abolishing slavery, suffrage, social security, civil rights, healthcare and gay marriage are all major milestones marking the progress of liberalism in America.

No, we are never going to turn back the clock to the past because no one who has tasted freedom relinquishes it easily. Equally so we are not going to allow those who want to undo this liberal progress in the name of unfettered capitalist greed take them away either in the future.

The OP is correct that there is a balance between liberalism and conservatism but in order to achieve that you need to have a balanced view of reality first. It is never all one side to the detriment of the other. The balance is achieved through pragmatic compromises.

The Founding Fathers embraced this principle when they wrote a flawed Constitution that enabled slavery because they had an urgent pragmatic need for a union of states that came before the liberal concept of freedom for all men. So they included a mechanism to enable future generations to expand the rights in the Constitution and that has worked and is still working to this very day.

A worthy rhetorical opponent can lucidly present a view that challenges one to absorb and consider whether one's own opposite view was really thought through. Bill Buckley could do that, regularly. He is greatly missed, and his legacy turned on its ear by the superficialities of the Rush Limbaughs that unfortunately stepped in to fill the void. And sadly void is what they filled it with.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The OP definitions are sound reasonable positions that a normal rational person would use for both liberalism and conservatism.

What we have in America today is an attempt to redefine both terms by those who seek to usurp the status quo and impose their own "new world order" that would be unrecognizable to those who embrace the OP definitions. The attempt to conflate liberalism with "statism" is patently absurd. The attempt to disguise libertarianism as conservatism is just outright delusional. Unfortunately we are witnessing both in America today.

Yes, I would much prefer to be debating with the likes of genuine conservative like the late William F Buckley jr. He was both smart and witty. A man who could form a cogent argument that was worthy of thinking about since it made sense. Alas there are no genuine conservatives of his kind to be found today. America is the poorer for that loss IMO.

This nation was founded upon the liberal principles of freedom and self determination. Since it's inception both of those liberal principles have been constantly expanded. Abolishing slavery, suffrage, social security, civil rights, healthcare and gay marriage are all major milestones marking the progress of liberalism in America.

No, we are never going to turn back the clock to the past because no one who has tasted freedom relinquishes it easily. Equally so we are not going to allow those who want to undo this liberal progress in the name of unfettered capitalist greed take them away either in the future.

The OP is correct that there is a balance between liberalism and conservatism but in order to achieve that you need to have a balanced view of reality first. It is never all one side to the detriment of the other. The balance is achieved through pragmatic compromises.

The Founding Fathers embraced this principle when they wrote a flawed Constitution that enabled slavery because they had an urgent pragmatic need for a union of states that came before the liberal concept of freedom for all men. So they included a mechanism to enable future generations to expand the rights in the Constitution and that has worked and is still working to this very day.

A worthy rhetorical opponent can lucidly present a view that challenges one to absorb and consider whether one's own opposite view was really thought through. Bill Buckley could do that, regularly. He is greatly missed, and his legacy turned on its ear by the superficialities of the Rush Limbaughs that unfortunately stepped in to fill the void. And sadly void is what they filled it with.

The term voiding has another meaning applies very aptly to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

 

[eagle1462010]

The questions for this topic are:

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

They of course can co-exist and have in the past co-existed as long as both parties can come to a compromise that takes both sides into the equation. We have devolved to a point were neither side is willing to compromise to pass a law that both sides can finally agree on................We have trended to a point were it's MY WAY OR THE HIGH WAY, as we have a divided Nation on our ideals now.

Classic Liberalism is gone, which is why I usually go for the jugular on the far left posters here all the time.......Not that it is always warranted, but it has come to that as many would call me a terrorist for my views and compare me and my beliefs to Terrorism.

When respect for each others opinions are gone, then there will always be harsh clashes as I give back as I receive and that is air apparent on this board.

Mutual respect is basically gone on this aspect of the target, as how can I respectfully post to someone who is calling me an ANARCHIST......

 

[eagle1462010]

Would today's liberals call JFK an Anarchist....................He's more of a Classic Liberal in a sense than todays Liberals...................

Hand up and Not a Hand out..............I believe in a Hand up and have always felt this way........today we have more of a HAND OUT..............Being Conservative DOESN'T mean we are against safety nets.............I certainly am Not against Safety nets, BUT THEIR HAS TO BE A LIMIT on what we provide as WE CANNOT AFFORD these nets and all the other BLOATED gov't programs that need to be cut.

The Safety Net has grown from the original purpose to providing more and more and more until some use it as a way of living............even though MANY are CAPABLE OF WORKING................cheaper to stay at home than to go to work...............We have WIC, Food Stamps, Housing assistance, Power and Utility Bill assistance, Welfare, Provide a phone, and other programs............and still many posters want more.............and I'm firmly against that as Nothing is Free in the world and someone has to pay for this................The corruption and abuse of these systems need to be curtailed................

Currently we spend over 1.5 TRILLION dollars a year more than the 2nd RATED country of CHINA on FEDERAL SPENDING...............

Let me repeat that number.........1.5 TRILLION MORE...............and yet I still see posters on here saying our Gov't is small...............That is plain stupid......................

The path we are on is the path of economic ruin............we cannot sustain these spending levels without eventually destroying our currency and our entire economy...............unless we change direction we eventually do to ourselves what no standing army could do to us....................This is the wrong path...........and it needs to end......................

Regulations.............I agree with regulations including regulating the markets to stop the BS of the TOO BIG TO FAIL............who under SELF REGULATION did to us the same dang thing they did that caused the Great Depression................

I'm for clean water, and air but understand that you must REGULATE TO A LIMIT...............and our GOV'T has so many REGULATIONS that I post the TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS all the time..............Because we are Regulated to the MAX ALREADY...................

So when I say we need to cut regulations, the far left posters go SEE HE DOESN'T WANT REGULATIONS which is utter BS...............Cutting OVER REGULATION is NOT THE SAME as NO REGULATION...............I don't want regulations to end, but IT'S GETTING RIDICULOUS.............

Ten Thousand Commandments

 

[eagle1462010]

Conservatism I think places a higher value on the State, as opposed to the (common) People. It prefers hierarchies and leans to authoritarianism.

LOL

States are made up of common people, and ruled by the elections of common people from that state.................

Why would I in Alabama want to be told how to live by someone in California or New York City..................The same as they wouldn't want to be told how to live by someone in Alabama.....................

Your next response would probably be how are they telling you how to live....................

A regulation approved Federally might be necessary for a large populated city, but not for a rural area with lower populations......................

The Founders stated many times AS LOCAL AS POSSIBLE...................as local Gov'ts address the LOCAL CONCERNS BETTER than the FEDERAL GOV'T.........as they are dealing with it on location and not from a office in DC.....................Many problems are better addressed by the views of the State our even country Gov't......................

 

[Pogo]

Conservatism I think places a higher value on the State, as opposed to the (common) People. It prefers hierarchies and leans to authoritarianism.

LOL

States are made up of common people, and ruled by the elections of common people from that state.................

Why would I in Alabama want to be told how to live by someone in California or New York City..................The same as they wouldn't want to be told how to live by someone in Alabama.....................

Your next response would probably be how are they telling you how to live....................

A regulation approved Federally might be necessary for a large populated city, but not for a rural area with lower populations......................

The Founders stated many times AS LOCAL AS POSSIBLE...................as local Gov'ts address the LOCAL CONCERNS BETTER than the FEDERAL GOV'T.........as they are dealing with it on location and not from a office in DC.....................Many problems are better addressed by the views of the State our even country Gov't......................

When I capitalize "State" I mean in the abstract sense of "nation", the idea of government at highest level -- not the provincial subdivision thereof such as Alabama or California. That would be "state" -- lower case. I was speaking of the former, not the latter.

 

[eagle1462010]

Conservatism I think places a higher value on the State, as opposed to the (common) People. It prefers hierarchies and leans to authoritarianism.

LOL

States are made up of common people, and ruled by the elections of common people from that state.................

Why would I in Alabama want to be told how to live by someone in California or New York City..................The same as they wouldn't want to be told how to live by someone in Alabama.....................

Your next response would probably be how are they telling you how to live....................

A regulation approved Federally might be necessary for a large populated city, but not for a rural area with lower populations......................

The Founders stated many times AS LOCAL AS POSSIBLE...................as local Gov'ts address the LOCAL CONCERNS BETTER than the FEDERAL GOV'T.........as they are dealing with it on location and not from a office in DC.....................Many problems are better addressed by the views of the State our even country Gov't......................

When I capitalize "State" I mean in the abstract sense of "nation", the idea of government at highest level -- not the provincial subdivision thereof such as Alabama or California. That would be "state" -- lower case. I was speaking of the former, not the latter.

Well then.............

I take back my LOL

My point of as Local as possible still stands to the OP.

Thankyou for the correction.

 

[Votto]

What do those terms mean to you?

For me, it is as follows...

Liberalism:

From a political perspective, it is a viewpoint or ideology associated with free speech, a free media, free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government (as opposed to private sector) in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are all each other's keepers.

From a social perspective, it is the opposite of conservatism. It's inclusive and seeks to ever widen the circle of what is in the "in" group. Our liberal impulse is what gave us abolition, civil rights and the rights of women to vote. Our liberal impulses are what make us human.

Davidson Loehr: "Liberal impulses serve to give us not stability but civility: humanity. They do this by expanding the definitions of our inherited territorial categories. The essential job of liberals in human societies is to enlarge our understanding of who belongs in our in-group. This is the plot of virtually all liberal advances."

Conservatism:

From a political perspective, conservative ideologies value established and traditional practices in politics and society. They prefer a strong and minimally regulated private-sector role over a government role in regulating capitalism and providing a social safety net. We are responsible for ourselves and for regulating ourselves in both business' and privately.

From a social perspective, Conservatism is also about protecting traditional social values and the status-quo. The status quo - what is defined as the "in group" is always updating. What was liberal and new, eventually becomes the status quo (the expanded "in group" to be protected. Civil rights, women's vote, etc expanded our "in group" into multi-colored, multi-gender. Conservatism protects stability in societies.

I see liberalism and conservatism somewhat holistically - comprising politics, culture, ethics and religion. I see it also as a balancing act - we can have a good society without both. If the pendulum swings to far in one direction we have chaos, it it is to far in the other we have stagnation.

Davison Loerh summed it up well in this article: UU World The Fundamentalist Agenda by Davidson Loehr

The questions for this topic are:

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

The rules are:

1. Leave political parties out of it, political parties change over time and don't necessarily reflect conservative or liberal values.

2. No ad homs or personal attacks - attack the argument not the speaker.

3. Light off topic banter is ok in small amounts, but lets not derail the thread.

The terms liberal and conservative really don't mean anything anymore. It's all a game.

What you have are collectivists who seek to further empower the federal government on both sides of the isle. As the middle class wanes, as well as the economy, they attempt to distract your attention and ire by blaming the other party. It works every time. Instead of taking any personal blame from either party, blame is simply deflected to the other guy. Meanwhile, corporate America rapes us with the help of the federal government.

Did you ever think you would ever see the day when corporate America would set our tax rates for health care?

Say, when is the next corporate bail out?

 

[Mertex]

There was an interesting program tonight on 20/20. It was about a company called Lumber Liquidators. Long story short, they are buying laminate wood floors from China that doesn't meet the standard requirements for formaldehyde and having the China company classify it as having met the standard. Too much formaldehyde in the wood floors causes respiratory illnesses for families having that type of wood floor installed. The execs at Lumber Liquidators act like they knew nothing about it, but ABC sent investigators posing as buyers to China and all three companies that Lumber Liquidators buys from admitted that the wood doesn't meet the standard but they mark the products as if they do.

Conservatives continue to believe that companies are honest and regulate themselves, but in this case and many other cases we have found out that companies are out to make money and they don't mind putting the screws to people. We the people, have to rely on government to make sure that companies don't screw us, but conservatives are happy to get screwed over and think it is okay because the companies provide jobs. They don't want government intruding, unless it is for something that they stand for, like abortion....then, they don't mind the government requiring all kinds of unnecessary procedures.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What is liberalism and conservatism to you politically, socially, religiously?

Right now liberalism to me is

1) Socially: Subversive, binding.
2) Religiously: Hostile to religion.
3) Politically: A philosophy which deals in excesses and excessive intervention on the individual level, one which has strayed far, far away from its roots.

Right now conservatism to me is

1) Socially: supportive, nonrestrictive.
2) Religiously: Religiously tolerant.
3) Politically: A philosophy which is at times too timid and too afraid to assert itself in a situation, what liberalism should be (i.e. Jeffersonian).

Can they both co-exist together and produce a balanced society?

Not today. The atmosphere is too politically polarized.

 

[Votto]

There was an interesting program tonight on 20/20. It was about a company called Lumber Liquidators. Long story short, they are buying laminate wood floors from China that doesn't meet the standard requirements for formaldehyde and having the China company classify it as having met the standard. Too much formaldehyde in the wood floors causes respiratory illnesses for families having that type of wood floor installed. The execs at Lumber Liquidators act like they knew nothing about it, but ABC sent investigators posing as buyers to China and all three companies that Lumber Liquidators buys from admitted that the wood doesn't meet the standard but they mark the products as if they do.

Conservatives continue to believe that companies are honest and regulate themselves, but in this case and many other cases we have found out that companies are out to make money and they don't mind putting the screws to people. We the people, have to rely on government to make sure that companies don't screw us, but conservatives are happy to get screwed over and think it is okay because the companies provide jobs. They don't want government intruding, unless it is for something that they stand for, like abortion....then, they don't mind the government requiring all kinds of unnecessary procedures.

Those on the left think that those in government are angels and never screw with us.

Those on the right think that those in government are angles and never screw with us.

Government and corporations laugh their arses off as they screw with us.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What is liberalism and conservatism to you politically, socially, religiously?

Right now liberalism to me is

1) Socially: Subversive, binding.
2) Religiously: Hostile to religion.
3) Politically: A philosophy which deals in excesses and excessive intervention on the individual level, one which has strayed far, far away from its roots.

Right now conservatism to me is

1) Socially: supportive, nonrestrictive.
2) Religiously: Religiously tolerant.
3) Politically: A philosophy which is at times too timid and too afraid to assert itself in a situation, what liberalism should be (i.e. Jeffersonian).

Can they both co-exist together and produce a balanced society?

Not today. The atmosphere is too politically polarized.

And yet it is the extreme right wing conservatives that are intolerant of Muslims, Atheists, gay marriage, unions, abortion, progressive taxation, regulations to keep our air, water and food safe, background checks and immigration reform.

How is any of the above "socially supportive and nonrestrictive"?

 

[Pogo]

There was an interesting program tonight on 20/20. It was about a company called Lumber Liquidators. Long story short, they are buying laminate wood floors from China that doesn't meet the standard requirements for formaldehyde and having the China company classify it as having met the standard. Too much formaldehyde in the wood floors causes respiratory illnesses for families having that type of wood floor installed. The execs at Lumber Liquidators act like they knew nothing about it, but ABC sent investigators posing as buyers to China and all three companies that Lumber Liquidators buys from admitted that the wood doesn't meet the standard but they mark the products as if they do.

Conservatives continue to believe that companies are honest and regulate themselves, but in this case and many other cases we have found out that companies are out to make money and they don't mind putting the screws to people. We the people, have to rely on government to make sure that companies don't screw us, but conservatives are happy to get screwed over and think it is okay because the companies provide jobs. They don't want government intruding, unless it is for something that they stand for, like abortion....then, they don't mind the government requiring all kinds of unnecessary procedures.

Exactly my point earlier. It's as if Corportia has replaced the Nobility as the second State of the Realm in the hierarchy so that the subservient fawning may continue. The subservience is the part I as a Liberal don't get.