Defining conservative vs liberal in america today

[Foxfyre]

foxfyre, I don't think any of us are best served if we approach our analysis of complex scientific matters with a bias. "I hope business is right"? C'mon. That ain't "conservative". It's magical thinking.

No business isn't always right, but it is the means by which people prosper. And again, those who prosper are far more likely to be concerned about the environment and the plants and creatures that exist within it than are those who are far more concerned about eating that day or having a roof over their heads. Therefore conservatives see it as counterproductive to the environment as well as everything else to keep people poor rather than offend environmentalists. Cap & Trade, for instance, that could deny whole populations the ability to exploit their natural resources in order to become prosperous as we have already done simply cannot be justified given the unproven benefits that it might even possibly generate.

The marsh grasses the environmentalists predicted would be lost are already regenerating in the gulf. The shrimp and fish are pronounced safe and edible. Beaches thought spoiled are clean and open for business. There will be some residue yes, possibly some long term damage here and there, but man's ability to deal with difficult problems and ways to clean up spills are improving all the time.

The conservative would say there that historically, the regulations have been sufficient and the oil industry has done a stellar job of protecting the environment in the gulf. Given thousands of success stories, one bad act is not sufficient to punish the whole or deny tens of thousands of people the ability to support their families and pursue the American dream in the good jobs those rigs and platforms provide.

 

[Madeline]

foxfyre, those who have declared the effects of the spill "all better now" have been criticiized for dishonesty. What sense does it make that the Gulf has recovered so quickly, when the effects of the Exxon Valdez are still being felt?

As for who has the bigger investment in the environment...well, returning to the steel mills that've been closed here, it clearly is the poor forced to live near them.

 

[nraforlife]

foxfyre, it is not possible to separate social issues from economic theory. A clean environment doubtless does appeal to everyone. But where the rubber meets the road is, do we impose restrictions on polluters? Protect natural spaces? Force the taxpayer to help fund clean up efforts?

I'm not saying all the answers have to be the same; reasonable people can disagree as to how best to move forward on the environment. But when the audience rejects taxation, regulation and preservation as anti-job, anti-business and anti-growth, it would be less than honest to say these same people are "pro-environment"..

In a world where everything is Private Property owners can be reliably depended upon to NOT foul their own nest. It is this idea by your sort that 'everything belongs to everybody' which is at the root of our tragedy of the commons'.

All rights can be excercised only at the expense of one's neighbor. Someone has to be forced to shove over if someone else is going to be "free". So it has to do with a prioritization of people, causes, concerns, etc. I place the vulnerable citizen fairly high up on that list of priorities, certainly higher than I do the Fortune 500. And in doing so, I find few other conservatives share my POV.

How do you figure what I create and produce without the least input from you or yours is costing you anything, eh????? You think we producers are your slaves or what?

 

[Foxfyre]

foxfyre, those who have declared the effects of the spill "all better now" have been criticiized for dishonesty. What sense does it make that the Gulf has recovered so quickly, when the effects of the Exxon Valdez are still being felt?

As for who has the bigger investment in the environment...well, returning to the steel mills that've been closed here, it clearly is the poor forced to live near them.

I fully acknowledged in my post that there has been damage and I fully acknowledged that some of that will linger. But I think you should acknowledge that there are thousands of other rigs and platforms that have not caused any damage. And tens of thousands of families have been able to furnish their daily needs, send their kids to school and college, and probably contribute to environmental concerns because those rigs and platforms are out there.

Should those tens of thousands of families be told that they will have to find some other means of supporting themselves because of one bad disaster that will not cause permanent irreversible harm? And should the rest of the people be subject to more scarecity of necessary fuel and energy, higher prices, and even more dependency on foreign oil?

The fact is the damage has not been as severe as the more passionate environmentalist wish to believe, and if you visit Prince William Sound now, you will find the effects of the Exxon Valdez incident lessened year by year and eventually they will no longer be evident.

That does not justify due care and concern should not be taken or that oil producers should not be required to use the best safety methods available.

As for the poor being the ones living with those closed mills, I guarantee you that if the poor are given ability to prosper and become unpoor, and they take advantage of that ability, THEY will see to it that the eyesores around them are remedied. It happens every single time. The best cure for pollution, blight, and decay is prosperity. When there is prosperity, there is less pollution, blight, and decay.

 

[Madeline]

foxfyre, have you been to Appalachia? Flint Michigan? Cleveland?

Restraint on business for the sake of the environment and the poor is absolutely a necessary government function. I'm having trouble making sense of what you have said in your last post.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have spent a summer with the people in Appalachia, yes. I have not spent any time in Flint or Cleveland, and I don't doubt that those places are as bad as you say. But I have seen blight and decay and corporate (and government) malfeasance and crushing poverty up close and personal.

The point I am making is that the BP oil spill was tragic and did a great deal of damage. It was heartbreaking to watch and I, along with most of us, watched it happen and despaired as it went on week after week, month after month. And yes there will be some long term negative consequences of that.

BUT. . . .

It has not proved to be the environmental disaster as some environmentalists want to see it. You mentioned dishonesty on one side that minimized the harm done. I'm not aware of that, but I do believe there is dishonesty among some ambitious anti-oil folks who want the damage to be so severe that it will drive policy and continue to punish big oil.

I am saying that the overall big picture--the overall exemplary track record--does not justify harming an industry that undergirds our democracy, freedoms, options, and opportunities and shutting it down will negatively impact tens of thousands of people who depend on it for their personal livelihood as well. BP should be required to continue to fnd cleanup efforts and make restitution as they can. But their one bad act should not cancel out all the good or deprive everybody else of their livelihood. Their bad act should not be used as an excuse to harm all the rest of us.

As for those rusting steel mills in Cleveland, it isn't that they became obsolete as you say. But increasing government control and interference was making it more and more difficult for them to make a profit. Between allowing closed union shops with mandatory inflated wages and benefits plus stepped up environmental and other regulations, the cost of America steel was higher and the quality lower than imported steel. Domestic steel buyers were no longer willing to absorb the higher cost and lower quality of American steel and were stepping up imported steel. By the 70's the weakened economy plus all the other factors resulted in the mills closing down.

Now, what if. . . .our government had been a conservative government? What if it had passed laws saying that a business did not have to be captive to a union? That a business owner could throw out a union that refused to negotiate reasonable terms? Government worked closely with industry to protect the environment and require reasonably safe working conditions but did not impose unnecessary expensive regulations and mandates? Wages would be driven by what the market could stand? It could have been very different simply by government helping business to compete instead of forcing business to conform to an unsustainable image of what government thought it should be.

I believe there are visionary conservatives out there who understand all that and who have the intestinal fortitude to reverse the destructive policies and make government advocate for business instead of a hindrance. And if we can elect enough folks like that to lead us, we can restore lost prosperity and Americans will find a way to build things, make things, and do things better than anybody else. When that happens, all that rust belt property will become valuable again, and the rust belt will go away.

 

[Madeline]

Well, first of all closed union shops are the result of freedom of contract. Only in a right to work state are they illegal...and freedom to contract as one wishes is (usually) a conservative thingie.

Did the unions kill the steel industry? To be honest, I really don't know what happened. My impression is our trade policies had the biggest effect, but I'm sure there's enough blame to go around. I still say, big business should not be free to do the sort of damage that these steel companies did and then walk away. Winding up costs should be higher than the expense of catering a final dinner party for the owners.

BP is harder to discuss, because what should happen is a function of whose science and engineering experts you believe. I don't believe BP's and you do...that doesn't leave us very far to go.

BTW, I am not proposing we end all off-shore drilling, just the deep sea wells.

 

[Listening]

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.

These issues will always be with us and there is no one solution. And when you have solved it in one context, it will show up again in another. That is the nature of the human experience.

Conservatives don't have and don't want a governmental solution to these kinds of issues. Such "solutions" are cold and often fall short. Once entrenched, they become difficult to change and also become political footballs.

Conservatives are very much engaged in solutions outside of the government.

And there is a whole continumum in between.

 

[Listening]

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.

I never signed any social contract. Any effort by liberals to force me into one is a restrictions of my rights.

We are NOT, a single society in all aspects. We are joined only by a narrow group of beliefs and activities. CA and OR get to do things their way and KS and MO can do it differently.

 

[Listening]

Liberals move America forward.

Conservatives stand in the way,

and get run over.

So that you won't be seen as a troll, please provide a specific example to illustrate your point of view.

Racial minority rights, workers' rights, women's suffrage, environmental protections, gay rights, for starters,

all causes moved forward by liberals,

running over conservative resistance in the process.

These are not rights, but favors to special interests.

A right, by defintion, is available to everyone. BTW: Wyoming was granting women the right to vote long before the 19th passed. But what would you expect.....Wyoming is a blue state...right ?

 

[rdean]

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.

Just the first two.

Conservatives want more government to regulate people's sex lives. We know that. It can't be denied.

Conservatives want to redistribute the wealth from the middle class to the top 1%. You can see it in every one of their policies. Besides, only a fool thinks people who believe education is for snobs think those people will get rich from something other than the lotto.

Not gonna bother with the rest. You can bet they are just as retarded.

 

[regent]

The "social contract" in political ideology usually refers to Rousseau and Locke, two liberals that said that people make a contract with government for certain benefits, (not welfare) and when government does not live up to its governmental obligations the govenment has broken the contact and can be removed. This was part of the liberal beliefs of the 1700's and one need only to read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to see the social contract.
There are a number of liberal beliefs and groups that support the different beliefs, but in all there are some core beliefs of liberalism that all groups believe, and some of those core beliefs can also be found in the Declaration. The right of property, with limits, was at one time a liberal Lockean concept but by 1776 Jefferson had begun to see some of the problems with property and changed it.

 

[Listening]

Conservatives want more government to regulate people's sex lives. We know that. It can't be denied.

Right....just ask Sandra Fluke.

Now go Fluke yourself.

 

[Listening]

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

This I can't agree with.

Mainly because I am not sure you will get agreement on what it means to be conservative.

I am hoping some can provide some guidance.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "social contract" in political ideology usually refers to Rousseau and Locke, two liberals that said that people make a contract with government for certain benefits, (not welfare) and when government does not live up to its governmental obligations the govenment has broken the contact and can be removed. This was part of the liberal beliefs of the 1700's and one need only to read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to see the social contract.
There are a number of liberal beliefs and groups that support the different beliefs, but in all there are some core beliefs of liberalism that all groups believe, and some of those core beliefs can also be found in the Declaration. The right of property, with limits, was at one time a liberal Lockean concept but by 1776 Jefferson had begun to see some of the problems with property and changed it.

That's sort of what I mean when I use the term 'social contract' but for me it is a much more practical day-to-day matter. If we as a community realize that a plethora of indiviually owned septic system will likely pollute our mutually shared aquifer, for instance, we may as a community vote to outlaw new septic systems in favor of a communally shared and funded sewer system. When we each do not wish to lay out the cash for equipment and training to fight fires, it makes sense to organixze, train, equip, and communally fund a fire department that will serve the whole community. And we elect public servants to administer and manage such practical shared services that become part of the social contract.

And going beyond the purely practical services included in social contract, it can also include certain aesthetics that the community sees as improving their quality of life, etc. Such as not allowing a bar or adult bookstore to be built near a school or to not have nudie bars or a casino in the community or establishing zoning laws to protect the property values in a neighborhood.

The Founding Fathers always assumed that a people who governed themselves would establish social contract according to their own needs and preferences. They were adament, however, that the Federal government would not dictate social contract but would defend the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have that did not violate the unalienable rights of any citizen.

 

[The T]

The "social contract" in political ideology usually refers to Rousseau and Locke, two liberals that said that people make a contract with government for certain benefits, (not welfare) and when government does not live up to its governmental obligations the govenment has broken the contact and can be removed. This was part of the liberal beliefs of the 1700's and one need only to read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to see the social contract.
There are a number of liberal beliefs and groups that support the different beliefs, but in all there are some core beliefs of liberalism that all groups believe, and some of those core beliefs can also be found in the Declaration. The right of property, with limits, was at one time a liberal Lockean concept but by 1776 Jefferson had begun to see some of the problems with property and changed it.

That's sort of what I mean when I use the term 'social contract' but for me it is a much more practical day-to-day matter. If we as a community realize that a plethora of indiviually owned septic system will likely pollute our mutually shared aquifer, for instance, we may as a community vote to outlaw new septic systems in favor of a communally shared and funded sewer system. When we each do not wish to lay out the cash for equipment and training to fight fires, it makes sense to organixze, train, equip, and communally fund a fire department that will serve the whole community. And we elect public servants to administer and manage such practical shared services that become part of the social contract.

And going beyond the purely practical services included in social contract, it can also include certain aesthetics that the community sees as improving their quality of life, etc. Such as not allowing a bar or adult bookstore to be built near a school or to not have nudie bars or a casino in the community or establishing zoning laws to protect the property values in a neighborhood.

The Founding Fathers always assumed that a people who governed themselves would establish social contract according to their own needs and preferences. They were adament, however, that the Federal government would not dictate social contract but would defend the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have that did not violate the unalienable rights of any citizen.

The missing link...(as it were)

All people have to do is go back and read thier writings.They sided with the individual and thier liberty every time...after all? That's what they were fighting against...a King and the most powerful force on Earth at the time knowing full well the consequences should they fail.

They did so freely.

 

[Listening]

The "social contract" in political ideology usually refers to Rousseau and Locke, two liberals that said that people make a contract with government for certain benefits, (not welfare) and when government does not live up to its governmental obligations the govenment has broken the contact and can be removed. This was part of the liberal beliefs of the 1700's and one need only to read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to see the social contract.
There are a number of liberal beliefs and groups that support the different beliefs, but in all there are some core beliefs of liberalism that all groups believe, and some of those core beliefs can also be found in the Declaration. The right of property, with limits, was at one time a liberal Lockean concept but by 1776 Jefferson had begun to see some of the problems with property and changed it.

That's sort of what I mean when I use the term 'social contract' but for me it is a much more practical day-to-day matter. If we as a community realize that a plethora of indiviually owned septic system will likely pollute our mutually shared aquifer, for instance, we may as a community vote to outlaw new septic systems in favor of a communally shared and funded sewer system. When we each do not wish to lay out the cash for equipment and training to fight fires, it makes sense to organixze, train, equip, and communally fund a fire department that will serve the whole community. And we elect public servants to administer and manage such practical shared services that become part of the social contract.

And going beyond the purely practical services included in social contract, it can also include certain aesthetics that the community sees as improving their quality of life, etc. Such as not allowing a bar or adult bookstore to be built near a school or to not have nudie bars or a casino in the community or establishing zoning laws to protect the property values in a neighborhood.

The Founding Fathers always assumed that a people who governed themselves would establish social contract according to their own needs and preferences. They were adament, however, that the Federal government would not dictate social contract but would defend the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have that did not violate the unalienable rights of any citizen.

Good post.

But, if you could break it down so that it somehow lays up against conservative and liberal, I would be grateful.

In the conservative world, people do believe in government. Jay said it was absolutely necesary. What they are against is to much government and what government they support, the will (or should) support at the most local level possible.

We've lived for 200 years without Universal Health Care. I am not opposed to a discussion of it at the state level (and I think it would be very revealing to see just how much money already goes for health care at the state level). But a federal health care system is not within their constitutional scope.

This is important for two reasons. The first, which is somewhat meaningless compared to the second is that they tend to screw up whatever they touch. I get so tired of "roads, schools, and clean air). The market can deliver most of these things better....it has never really had a chance (although you could argue at the municiple level it is the market). Second, if they think they can run past the constiution on this, what else do they think they can get away with ?

I believe liberals look at something without any context and simply say "that sounds good...we should do it" without paying much attention to the ramifications. I believe conservatives say, you'd better be very careful about engaging the government. The government is not some soft and fuzzy uncle. It is a harsh master and any time you engage it, you had better be prepared.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

Progressives aren't tolerant of anything.

Progressives are the least tolerant assclowns on this planet...

 

[Foxfyre]

The "social contract" in political ideology usually refers to Rousseau and Locke, two liberals that said that people make a contract with government for certain benefits, (not welfare) and when government does not live up to its governmental obligations the govenment has broken the contact and can be removed. This was part of the liberal beliefs of the 1700's and one need only to read Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to see the social contract.
There are a number of liberal beliefs and groups that support the different beliefs, but in all there are some core beliefs of liberalism that all groups believe, and some of those core beliefs can also be found in the Declaration. The right of property, with limits, was at one time a liberal Lockean concept but by 1776 Jefferson had begun to see some of the problems with property and changed it.

That's sort of what I mean when I use the term 'social contract' but for me it is a much more practical day-to-day matter. If we as a community realize that a plethora of indiviually owned septic system will likely pollute our mutually shared aquifer, for instance, we may as a community vote to outlaw new septic systems in favor of a communally shared and funded sewer system. When we each do not wish to lay out the cash for equipment and training to fight fires, it makes sense to organixze, train, equip, and communally fund a fire department that will serve the whole community. And we elect public servants to administer and manage such practical shared services that become part of the social contract.

And going beyond the purely practical services included in social contract, it can also include certain aesthetics that the community sees as improving their quality of life, etc. Such as not allowing a bar or adult bookstore to be built near a school or to not have nudie bars or a casino in the community or establishing zoning laws to protect the property values in a neighborhood.

The Founding Fathers always assumed that a people who governed themselves would establish social contract according to their own needs and preferences. They were adament, however, that the Federal government would not dictate social contract but would defend the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wished to have that did not violate the unalienable rights of any citizen.

Good post.

But, if you could break it down so that it somehow lays up against conservative and liberal, I would be grateful.

In the conservative world, people do believe in government. Jay said it was absolutely necesary. What they are against is to much government and what government they support, the will (or should) support at the most local level possible.

We've lived for 200 years without Universal Health Care. I am not opposed to a discussion of it at the state level (and I think it would be very revealing to see just how much money already goes for health care at the state level). But a federal health care system is not within their constitutional scope.

This is important for two reasons. The first, which is somewhat meaningless compared to the second is that they tend to screw up whatever they touch. I get so tired of "roads, schools, and clean air). The market can deliver most of these things better....it has never really had a chance (although you could argue at the municiple level it is the market). Second, if they think they can run past the constiution on this, what else do they think they can get away with ?

I believe liberals look at something without any context and simply say "that sounds good...we should do it" without paying much attention to the ramifications. I believe conservatives say, you'd better be very careful about engaging the government. The government is not some soft and fuzzy uncle. It is a harsh master and any time you engage it, you had better be prepared.

Within the scope modern Americanl liberalism and modern American conservatism, it really boils down to whether the people decide for themselves and their community or a strong central government decides it for them.

While I have long thought most, not all but most American liberals cannot articulate a rationale for the opinions they hold, they do seem to think that if it sounds noble, righteous, compassionate, or whatever, then let's do it. The motive alone makes it what should be done.

Conservatives are more pragmatic and require results regardless of how noble something sounds or how terrific the title of the program is.

The Founders however knew that allowing people to govern themselves would result in some places being the rigid theocracies that existed in our country in its infancy and some people would be no holds barred free for alls. But they trusted the people to work things out and get to a better place than any central government could ever design for them.

 

[Listening]

Within the scope modern Americanl liberalism and modern American conservatism, it really boils down to whether the people decide for themselves and their community or a strong central government decides it for them.

While I have long thought most, not all but most American liberals cannot articulate a rationale for the opinions they hold, they do seem to think that if it sounds noble, righteous, compassionate, or whatever, then let's do it. The motive alone makes it what should be done.

Conservatives are more pragmatic and require results regardless of how noble something sounds or how terrific the title of the program is.

The Founders however knew that allowing people to govern themselves would result in some places being the rigid theocracies that existed in our country in its infancy and some people would be no holds barred free for alls. But they trusted the people to work things out and get to a better place than any central government could ever design for them.

That's right.

Because they know some of us would like to live in a theocracy while others of us would prefer the wild west.

It's up to us and Barack Obama can shove his love of big government up David Axelrod's ass.