Defining conservative vs liberal in america today

[Foxfyre]

Both!

But, I made no bones about it.

Immie

Well we are probably on the same page as to which point of view is the most defensible and that is why I identify myself as a modern American conservative.

Years of being on the debate team and then years as a volunteer debate coach and judge has trained me to fully see and analyze both sides of any concept or issue and be able to argue/defend both sides competently. But most conservatives, even without formal training, can do that if they are required to do so. Liberals, both on debate teams and on message boards, seem to have a much tougher time doing that.

And most of us, once we have learned how to see, analyze, and understand both sides of an argument, weighed against the honest results when concepts are implemented, will almost always choose the side of conservatism as the most persuasive. Which speaks well of the American people because, issue by issue, most are right of center on most.

I appreciate your approach.

I would suggest the book I mentioned earlier. It is a fascinating read (to me).

One thing that lacks in a lot of these arguments are basic economic or financial models. That is where some of the proof is. If you can agree on the inputs, you can pretty much agree on the results. It is the inputs that drive the debate.

Where this is significant is that liberals are going to consign our children to a lifetime of debt. The GOP has not helped this situation in the last 30 years and, in fact, has been complicet in it to a large degree at the federal level.

You can't spend what you don't have. The GOP says it, but they don't seem to behave that way.

That is why the Tea Party was formed.

This is about our kids.

I agree completely and that is why I say that Republicans and Democrats or any other political party are not an issue in this discussion. We have had big government creep, slowly at first and escalating from administration to administration, from Congress to Congress, ever since. Republicans and Democrats may take somewhat different approaches and use different explanations, but they have both contributed to it.

I think part of it has to do with illusions of grandeur or the "Robin Hood syndrome" seeing oneself as 'changing lives and society for the better' or something to that effect. I think most of it, however, goes back to what the Founders warned us of. Once politicians discover they can use the people's money to win the people's support and votes, and thereby increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, the Constitution will no longer save us from unbridled greed and opportunism that will shove aside all the great concepts that went into it.

Free stuff is almost impossible to resist for many and it is always corrupting at the government level, both for those distributing it and for those receiving it.

 

[Listening]

I agree completely and that is why I say that Republicans and Democrats or any other political party are not an issue in this discussion. We have had big government creep, slowly at first and escalating from administration to administration, from Congress to Congress, ever since. Republicans and Democrats may take somewhat different approaches and use different explanations, but they have both contributed to it.

I think part of it has to do with illusions of grandeur or the "Robin Hood syndrome" seeing oneself as 'changing lives and society for the better' or something to that effect. I think most of it, however, goes back to what the Founders warned us of. Once politicians discover they can use the people's money to win the people's support and votes, and thereby increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, the Constitution will no longer save us from unbridled greed and opportunism that will shove aside all the great concepts that went into it.

Free stuff is almost impossible to resist for many and it is always corrupting at the government level, both for those distributing it and for those receiving it.

Yes, that is what we call "The Dark Side". It is the easy way out. As much as I don't like to see people suffer, I don't give my children all they want so they can go without and learn to "forage" for themselves as it were.

Sometimes it is very difficult not to want to rescue.

But, I have seen "rescues" by people such as my in-laws screw things up pretty good compared to where they were. People need to be able to work through their issues.

I am not for letting people starve. But, frankly, this is where I get a little ticked. I am not aware of anyone starving in my community. And if they do, I don't blame Barack Obama....I blame myself and my community.

We need to revese this tide. We need to turn back the clock and the damage people like Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer have done. I have gotten more active in my local scene and I am encouraging others to do the same.

 

[Listening]

Bump.

 

[Listening]

So, how do the liberals define themselves ?

I'd be curious to hear how that works.

 

[initforme]

I used to be purely conservative. I worked in corporate america for 20 some years. I sat in meetings and discussed personnel like they were figments that could be fired/reshuffled on a whim. I got sick of seeing the same people reap the rewards for those working under them. When those under started to make more money, they were let go. That truly disgusted me. I quit that nonsense and started my own business. I built it up and ran it the way I wanted. Higher wages instead of lower ones. Good benefits instead of poor ones. Adding some paid sick days rather than reducing them. It all equated to more profits for the business because the work quality was high and the jobs kept coming. I believe this is due to the fact that I demand my workers to have post high school degrees in the construction field. If they wont go through that training then they wont be as productive as I would like. I have seen america switch from this mentality to promoting cheap labor, less benefits, workers treated like they can be fired at any time. This is todays america. We are slowly undercutting the middle class way of life. The wealthy and corporations are taking more and more control. It really scares me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I used to be purely conservative. I worked in corporate america for 20 some years. I sat in meetings and discussed personnel like they were figments that could be fired/reshuffled on a whim. I got sick of seeing the same people reap the rewards for those working under them. When those under started to make more money, they were let go. That truly disgusted me. I quit that nonsense and started my own business. I built it up and ran it the way I wanted. Higher wages instead of lower ones. Good benefits instead of poor ones. Adding some paid sick days rather than reducing them. It all equated to more profits for the business because the work quality was high and the jobs kept coming. I believe this is due to the fact that I demand my workers to have post high school degrees in the construction field. If they wont go through that training then they wont be as productive as I would like. I have seen america switch from this mentality to promoting cheap labor, less benefits, workers treated like they can be fired at any time. This is todays america. We are slowly undercutting the middle class way of life. The wealthy and corporations are taking more and more control. It really scares me.

And why do big corporations support Democrats more than Republicans? Because of the extra regulation and mandates and free stuff of course. The big corporations can 'buy' the big contracts and because most are already unionized, they WANT the government to issue contracxts to union only shops and they WANT the government to mandate that small business operate in the same way that big corporate America does. Once that happens, then the small business can no longer compete and that is one of the reasons for the vanishing middle class (which is nonsense of course. The middle class remains alive and well in America.)

The problem is confusing big corporations with 'conservatism'. WANTING more government control and mandates, which big corporate America embraces, just so long as big corporate America gets the bailouts and contracts and subsidies and special consideration from the politicians it buys, is NOT a conservative concept.

My husband and I have found working for small business to be infinitely more satisfying that working for big corporations even though we always had fewer benefits. And when we got tired of working for the other fellow, we started our own business. THAT is where the middle class still resides and THAT is what a big, libera, authoritarianl government is trying harder and harder to screw over despite all the noble sounding rhetoric.

Conservatives WANT people to be educated and taught how to think critically and creatively and to be encouraged to acquire marketable skills and to be encouraged to live their lives so as to be desirable and employable and largely increase their prospects to live the American dream.

 

[UpAndAbout]

I used to be purely conservative. I worked in corporate america for 20 some years. I sat in meetings and discussed personnel like they were figments that could be fired/reshuffled on a whim. I got sick of seeing the same people reap the rewards for those working under them. When those under started to make more money, they were let go. That truly disgusted me. I quit that nonsense and started my own business. I built it up and ran it the way I wanted. Higher wages instead of lower ones. Good benefits instead of poor ones. Adding some paid sick days rather than reducing them. It all equated to more profits for the business because the work quality was high and the jobs kept coming. I believe this is due to the fact that I demand my workers to have post high school degrees in the construction field. If they wont go through that training then they wont be as productive as I would like. I have seen america switch from this mentality to promoting cheap labor, less benefits, workers treated like they can be fired at any time. This is todays america. We are slowly undercutting the middle class way of life. The wealthy and corporations are taking more and more control. It really scares me.

And why do big corporations support Democrats more than Republicans? Because of the extra regulation and mandates and free stuff of course. The big corporations can 'buy' the big contracts and because most are already unionized, they WANT the government to issue contracxts to union only shops and they WANT the government to mandate that small business operate in the same way that big corporate America does. Once that happens, then the small business can no longer compete and that is one of the reasons for the vanishing middle class (which is nonsense of course. The middle class remains alive and well in America.)

The problem is confusing big corporations with 'conservatism'. WANTING more government control and mandates, which big corporate America embraces, just so long as big corporate America gets the bailouts and contracts and subsidies and special consideration from the politicians it buys, is NOT a conservative concept.

My husband and I have found working for small business to be infinitely more satisfying that working for big corporations even though we always had fewer benefits. And when we got tired of working for the other fellow, we started our own business. THAT is where the middle class still resides and THAT is what a big, libera, authoritarianl government is trying harder and harder to screw over despite all the noble sounding rhetoric.

Conservatives WANT people to be educated and taught how to think critically and creatively and to be encouraged to acquire marketable skills and to be encouraged to live their lives so as to be desirable and employable and largely increase their prospects to live the American dream.

Totally agree with that. I too prefer working for the smaller companies.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

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.

As a conservative, I agree. Well put in fact. Also, this nation must return to a Constitutional Federal Republic, as framed, and cease to be not a socialist democracy.

Robert

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

As a conservative, I agree. Well put in fact. Also, this nation must return to a Constitutional Federal Republic, as framed, and cease to be not a socialist democracy.

Robert

But, realistically, too many Americans have grown up in a liberal controlled education system in which they have been indoctrinated with liberal concepts, attitudes, and perceptions--they aren't called that of course, but that is what they are. The concept of encouraging critical, independent thought has almost vanished from the public schools.

So now we have a large percentage of our fellow Americans who have no clue what a Constitutional Federal republic, as framed, is. And they tend to attack and denigrate the Founders and those who quote them or those who support the classical liberal (i.e. modern American conservative) principles and concepts upon which they built the U.S. Constitution.

It is paradoxical that modern American liberals say that they want to promote liberty, but also want the Constitution to be a fluid 'living' document that will change with the times, meaning that it allows iberals to use the Federal government to force their idea of an acceptable society onto everybody else.

We even see it in our 'constitutional professor' President who yesterday was railing against a Supreme Court that will likely take away his ability to take away the freedom of the people regarding their healthcare. A modern American conservative would never see that as a constitutional prerogative of the federal government. But the President not only sees it as the right of the government to do, but that the people should have no rights regarding that. (Do you wonder what he was teaching his students in his constitutional law classes?)

 

[Decepticon]

Government control of life? BULLSHIT!
Are some things more efficient when everyone concerned works together? Only a complete FOOL would answer "No". How many people are protesting for the "freedom to live under a bridge "?

Merit driven distribution of wealth? BULLSHIT!

Government charity vs private charity?
Let me know when private charity makes the food stamp program unnecessary, willya? Then I'm all on board.

Social concerns of the citizens?
Like keeping blacks out of State Universities?


Using the tax system for redistribution of income ?

Yup.....only it wasn't DEMS to redistributed wealth down, but CONZ who distributed it up, huh?

Citizens of the world vs citizens of America?
So it doesn't matter what happens in Mexico with the drug cartels?
or in the middle east with oil prices?
Way to celebrate being ignorant. That's precisely the kind of thinking that got us into Iraq without asking too many pesky questions.

Liberals VS Conservatives on specificity?
They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Hey, it's only 4 trillion dollars, 4000+ of our guys lives that were on the line, right?

Government establishes the social contract.
What the FUCK do you think government IS if NOT a social contract?


Your whole post was nothing other than subjective value judgments and as I showed on your merit argument....sometimes completely at odds with objective reality.


How about this?
How about you post specific pieces of the GOP platform and show how well they've worked out for America?
Like how all the money we've spent on missile defense has resulted in a working program.

How high tax rates on top earners didn't stop companies from growing, hiring new people and building new facilities.

How deregulation worked out SO WELL for the financial sector!

Go ahead. Do a cost-benefit analysis of the CON platform and see how wonderfully you've done!

 

[Truthseeker420]

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 3.0 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 2.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will 1.0 and she will have a 4.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA. because she is the job creator.

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That would be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! But I owe it to the job creators. Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off but that is just class warfare!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative party."

fixed it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Government control of life? BULLSHIT!
Are some things more efficient when everyone concerned works together? Only a complete FOOL would answer "No". How many people are protesting for the "freedom to live under a bridge "?

If there is no right to choose to live under a bridge, assuming it is legal to do so, there is no freedom at all. That is assuming that the people are capable of making that rational choice. Hobos who chose such a way of life were common around the turn of the last century and well into and just after WWII. And in their own way they were fully responsible and respected citizens.

Do you know who most of the people living under bridges are now? Most are mentally ill or the addicted or otherwise severely challenged and not in full charge of their own thought processes and reactions. There was a time that society provided institutions that were less than adequate in many ways, but at least provided shelter, a bed, and three squares a day for the mentally ill. And it was common for the judge to give the habitiual addicted offender or vagrant a choice: Jail or he/she could be confined in a rehab facility for 30 to 60 days, get dried out, and have a chance to learn how to live clean and sober.

Do you know who it was that dismantled most of the institutions getting these people off the street? It wasnt the conservatives. It was the liberals picketing and demanding and lobbying for these poor, unfortunate, people to be set free. To be de-institutionalized. To be allowed the choice to be wherever they chose to be. And with a mostly liberal Congress, that got tucked into some other big bill so it wouldn't be noticed or debated, and the homeless and addicted were indeed set free. That was back in the 1980's.

Business under the bridges picked up considerably after that. Another case of where noble intentions produced unintended negative consequences.

Does 'working together' mean turning our lives over to a big central government to determine how we shall be allowed to live them? Or does it mean people reasoning together to form a social contract that mutually benefits all and the government respecting and honoring their right to do that?

 

[Listening]

How deregulation worked out SO WELL for the financial sector!

Go ahead. Do a cost-benefit analysis of the CON platform and see how wonderfully you've done!

It's become quite clear that you don't understand the facets of this argument.

The founders did not do a cost benefit analysis on the constitution. They were concerned about liberty.

That you don't see that and that you continually demand that the argument be conducted on your own terms is.........very liberal.

Go to hell.

I have some liberal friends I talk to who can discuss issues without sounding like jackasses (and they talk to some cons who do act like jackasses).

And I know ignorant idiot liberals like yourselves. I simply ask why I would even talk with you about anything. I'll vote for people to screw you over and because I live in a conservative area......you can piss off. I really don't care about how you feel if all you need to do is fart through your mouth.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

both liberals and conservatives are fiscally irresponsible. that's all that matters at this point.

 

[Listening]

Do you know who it was that dismantled most of the institutions getting these people off the street? It wasnt the conservatives. It was the liberals picketing and demanding and lobbying for these poor, unfortunate, people to be set free. To be de-institutionalized. To be allowed the choice to be wherever they chose to be. And with a mostly liberal Congress, that got tucked into some other big bill so it wouldn't be noticed or debated, and the homeless and addicted were indeed set free. That was back in the 1980's.

Business under the bridges picked up considerably after that. Another case of where noble intentions produced unintended negative consequences.

A link would be useful for this story.

But regardless, that is the point of conservatives. If someone starves to death in a community, it isn't the fault of the government...it is the fault of the community.

We want to take care of each other outside of government for two reasons.

First, we don't want compulsion. We want to be free to chose. That is more risky and we accept that. But if we believe in accountability....we'll take that risk.

Second, government is not the way to do things becasue it a tool of politicians. Look at the history of social security. For a time, everyone loved to be associated with it. It was a winner all the way....even though it was not that good for the really poor elderly. But, it is now entrenched and it isn't seen as a winner. If democrats could significantly modify it, the would....it is a real loser and has become a millstone.

The founders understood this about centralized government power and wanted to avoid it.

What most liberals forget is the government that preceeded the current one. It was founded on a toothless document entitled the Articles of Confederation. That wasn't by accident. That should be enough to tell you the mood of the country.

 

[Listening]

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.

Not everyone wants to be upwardly mobile. But that does not mean we should not be independent.

I guess one of my questions is just what is it that people think life owes us ? Somehow I get this feeling that there is some minimum level of existence that should be afforded everyone.

I tend to equate that with a liberal way of thinking.....

Am I wrong ?

 

[Listening]

I'll bump this in the hopes of getting some churn.

 

[Foxfyre]

Finding good links for the less 'interesting' topics from the Reagan years and before isn't that easy to do because the internet was still in its infancy then and little of the debate and discussion was on line. But the history is there. We can go back to a trend of deinstitutionalization beginning in the 1950's and 60's, coming to a head in the Carter administration and finally accomplished in the Reagan administration. The intent of course was to give people as much independence as possible. But unfortunately those who really needed to be institutionalized got caught up with the rest and therefore the populations under the bridges surged and homeless shelters became all too common in the large cities.

Back in the 70's and early 80's, it was common for judges to give the habitual DWI or drug offender a choice of being incarcerated in a rehab center or jail. A great many opted for rehab. Now such a choice is rare and many fine rehab facilities have closed down for lack of business. Another case of good intentions producing unintended negative consequences.

It isn't much different than well intended desegregation programs to end 'inequities' coupled with 'Great Society' relief programs. The results however were that progress of black people, who had been the most rapidly advancing demographic in a free market system, was slowed to a crawl. Black institutions that had been the backbone in promoting black prosperity were dismantled, the 'projects' were born promoting decimation of the black family, and creating permanent underclasses of angry, violent, unemployable young people.

Now waiting for somebody on the left to type "bullshit' right on cue because the truth doesn't fit the liberal/leftist mantra. Destroys the very foundations it is built on even. But when you can't even get people to agree on the definitions of left/right, liberal/conservative in modern day America, a good discussion on the pros and cons probably isn't going to happen either.

 

[uscitizen]

Defining conservative vs liberal in america today

Those who are stupit enough to be eagerly used against their own best interests.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

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?

Your response to her good post and data, and the vitriolic response by you is not needed.

The issues she states are sound.

For instance, for the most I agree. I am also a conservative.

Take a breath and consider.\

Robert