Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[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.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me take a stab at it.

Conservatism seeks to preserve an ideal.

Liberalism seeks to create one.

Nobody ever really gets near the ideal.

Case in point. My very first vote ever in 1980 was for Ronald Reagan. Reagan put forth a notion that in the 1960's and 1970's we had strayed away from the idyllic world of the 1940's and 1950's. Except those times weren't idyllic. He put the blame on socially permissive attitudes, but the reality was, America had just enjoyed a bubble in the 1940-1970 period in that we had the only intact infrastructure. By 1976, the rest of the world had caught up and we got complacent.

But he made it sound good.

I think the other point is that when these guys get into office, they stop being purists and start being pragmatists. I remember conservative grumbling against Reagan in 1988 that just grew louder wiht George Bush. Liberals were never happy with Clinton, but felt a need to defend him against unfair attacks. Conservatives were very grumpy with Dubya and Liberals have definitely seen the sheen come off the rose with Obama.

I also think (and I know this is a bit rambling) that the labels really end up being grab-bags of goodies. So you have religious conservatives and economic conservatives and security conservatives all under that same grab-bag of "conservative", but their goals are really kind of contradictory. Religious conservatives want less sexual and personal freedom, while economic conservatives want more regulatory freedom.

 

[S.J.]

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

 

[1stRambo]

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

Yo, "The Liberal Mind" is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains. [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD]

"GTP"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatism is in essence reactionary, hostile toward change, fearful of diversity and dissent. Conservatives, for the most part, perceive themselves as 'defenders' of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with; an American past that was in no way 'ideal' for minorities and women, where most on the right have a propensity toward authoritarianism in pursuit of the conservative agenda.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I always thought that post-1968, liberal meant fag.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The most problematic manifestation of conservatism, of course, is the social right – hostile toward the rights of gay Americans and women, most on the social right pursue an agenda in conflict with the Constitution's mandate that church and state remain separate, as they seek to codify errant, subjective religious dogma into secular law in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law being among the more repugnant examples of the social right's un-Constitutional policies.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

Yo, "The Liberal Mind" is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains. [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD]

"GTP"
View attachment 37336

So your contribution to a reasoned and mature discussion of the differences between conservatism and liberalism is that liberalism is a mental disorder, and not worthy of fair discussion. While it is instructive for you to present such an attitude that is shared by many conservatives, but far from accurate, I'm not sure why you would present that type thing here instead of the flame zone.

 

[ralfy]

If we follow these two definitions:

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Conservatism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

then we can argue that U.S. forms of either involve elements of both.

 

[1stRambo]

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

Yo, "The Liberal Mind" is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains. [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD]

"GTP"
View attachment 37336

So your contribution to a reasoned and mature discussion of the differences between conservatism and liberalism is that liberalism is a mental disorder, and not worthy of fair discussion. While it is instructive for you to present such an attitude that is shared by many conservatives, but far from accurate, I'm not sure why you would present that type thing here instead of the flame zone.

Yo, it is right on, if the shoe fits? Wear it!

"GTP"

 

[1stRambo]

The most problematic manifestation of conservatism, of course, is the social right – hostile toward the rights of gay Americans and women, most on the social right pursue an agenda in conflict with the Constitution's mandate that church and state remain separate, as they seek to codify errant, subjective religious dogma into secular law in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law being among the more repugnant examples of the social right's un-Constitutional policies.

Yo, since when did "GAYS" have rights that other Americans don`t have, Perverted Rights?

"GTP"

 

[BULLDOG]

The most problematic manifestation of conservatism, of course, is the social right – hostile toward the rights of gay Americans and women, most on the social right pursue an agenda in conflict with the Constitution's mandate that church and state remain separate, as they seek to codify errant, subjective religious dogma into secular law in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law being among the more repugnant examples of the social right's un-Constitutional policies.

Yo, since when did "GAYS" have rights that other Americans don`t have, Perverted Rights?

"GTP"
View attachment 37338

What rights are those?

 

[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.

 

[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"?

 

[1stRambo]

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"

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

 

[Coyote]

Yo, who freed the Slaves? Only the Bright and Beautiful inside women are welcome to the Republican Party, Democrats can have the Hags and Radical nut-jobs!

"GTP"

This is a good example of why I set out in the rules that we do not bring in political parties the parties of yesterday are not the parties of today (you could start a thread on that if you wanted).

Abolition was a liberal impulse - it was seeking to include black people within the the "in group". The people who supported might not have have been liberals in other ways or what we consider liberal today - but those attitudes were liberal. Once they became the status quo - conservatives protected it.

So no more about political parties, ok?

 

[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?

 

[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, idealog, marxist, Alinsky following, Soros funded, radical that is in the process of "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.

 

[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?