Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[Dogmaphobe]

One of the defining characteristics of either ideology has to do with attitudes towards social justice and social order. In the etymology of the term "conservative", what is being conserved is social order and all the mores, institutions, and customs thus involved. Liberalism, on the other hand, involves a greater emphasis on social justice as it regards group dynamics in such a way as to safeguard the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority.

What has thrown a monkey wrench into our perception of these terms is the dogmatic construct called "multiculturalism". While embraced by the non liberal portion of the left, multiculturalism is actually profoundly conservative in its actual function as it is in the business of preserving social order, institutions and mores -- and this at the expense of the individual. The only catch here is that what multiculturalists seek to conserve are the ingrained social institutions of OTHER cultures living within the midst and often times at the expense of their own culture.

The most prominent example of the difference between a liberal and a multiculturalist is in the approach to Islam. Islam is the most archly conservative ideology on the planet as it seeks to conserve a social order 1400 years in the past. Despite this, the illiberal multiculturalists have elevated the protection of Islam to their veritable cause celebre as they seek to protect Islam's extremely conservative attitudes from any criticism. A liberal, on the other hand, is quick to note the extreme misogyny of Islam, its disregard for the separation of religion and state, its lack of regard for individual rights, its opposition to humanist values, and the incontrovertible fact that it opposes every liberal principle imaginable.

People too often confuse authoritarian leftist for liberal, especially as so many lock-step leftists try to posit themselves as such. Bill Maher is a liberal. Christopher Hitchens was a liberal. Those whose habit it is to defend Islam at every turn are not. They are simply ultra-conformist practitioners of a form of group think that does not use liberal values as its basis because they have adopted a rigidly doctrinaire new ideology called multiculturalism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

One of the defining characteristics of either ideology has to do with attitudes towards social justice and social order. In the etymology of the term "conservative", what is being conserved is social order and all the mores, institutions, and customs thus involved. Liberalism, on the other hand, involves a greater emphasis on social justice as it regards group dynamics in such a way as to safeguard the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority.

What has thrown a monkey wrench into our perception of these terms is the dogmatic construct called "multiculturalism". While embraced by the non liberal portion of the left, multiculturalism is actually profoundly conservative in its actual function as it is in the business of preserving social order, institutions and mores -- and this at the expense of the individual. The only catch here is that what multiculturalists seek to conserve are the ingrained social institutions of OTHER cultures living within the midst and often times at the expense of their own culture.

The most prominent example of the difference between a liberal and a multiculturalist is in the approach to Islam. Islam is the most archly conservative ideology on the planet as it seeks to conserve a social order 1400 years in the past. Despite this, the illiberal multiculturalists have elevated the protection of Islam to their veritable cause celebre as they seek to protect Islam's extremely conservative attitudes from any criticism. A liberal, on the other hand, is quick to note the extreme misogyny of Islam, its disregard for the separation of religion and state, its lack of regard for individual rights, its opposition to humanist values, and the incontrovertible fact that it opposes every liberal principle imaginable.

People too often confuse authoritarian leftist for liberal, especially as so many lock-step leftists try to posit themselves as such. Bill Maher is a liberal. Christopher Hitchens was a liberal. Those whose habit it is to defend Islam at every turn are not. They are simply ultra-conformist practitioners of a form of group think that does not use liberal values as its basis because they have adopted a rigidly doctrinaire new ideology called multiculturalism.

Your point is taken however you are treating Islam as a monolithic entity which it isn't. Muslims in America don't have the same adherence to the social order that you are claiming they do. The variances in how Muslims see their faith is as varied as it is amongst Christians and Jews. In essence you could say the exact things about fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews. But they are a minority and so you are egregiously labeling all Muslims as being no different to the minority fundamentalist faction.

Now feel free to call me an "authoritarian leftist" just because I don't buy into your mischaracterization of the vast majority of 1.5 billion people.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Your point is taken however you are treating Islam as a monolithic entity which it isn't. Muslims in America don't have the same adherence to the social order that you are claiming they do. The variances in how Muslims see their faith is as varied as it is amongst Christians and Jews. In essence you could say the exact things about fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews. But they are a minority and so you are egregiously labeling all Muslims as being no different to the minority fundamentalist faction.

Now feel free to call me an "authoritarian leftist" just because I don't buy into your mischaracterization of the vast majority of 1.5 billion people.

You can certainly avail yourself to reputable opinion polls to see what Muslims do actually believe. You can certainly pretend all you want that Islam is no different than Christianity or Judaism, but the the polls reveal quite a different story.

It is quite obvious that not all Muslims hold the exact, same beliefs, but that doesn't mean the beliefs they do hold are comparable to other religions. You have simply predetermined that you must defend them because you do not apply liberal principles to the subject.

What percentage of the world's Muslims believe in killing those who leave their "faith", for instance? How many Islamic countries have laws against blasphemy? How many Christians or Jews believe in killing those who leave their faith? How many Christian or Jewish countries have laws against blasphemy?

You are basing your political opinions on what you do not know about Islam. I base mine on what I do.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your point is taken however you are treating Islam as a monolithic entity which it isn't. Muslims in America don't have the same adherence to the social order that you are claiming they do. The variances in how Muslims see their faith is as varied as it is amongst Christians and Jews. In essence you could say the exact things about fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews. But they are a minority and so you are egregiously labeling all Muslims as being no different to the minority fundamentalist faction.

Now feel free to call me an "authoritarian leftist" just because I don't buy into your mischaracterization of the vast majority of 1.5 billion people.

You can certainly avail yourself to reputable opinion polls to see what Muslims do actually believe. You can certainly pretend all you want that Islam is no different than Christianity or Judaism, but the the polls reveal quite a different story.

It is quite obvious that not all Muslims hold the exact, same beliefs, but that doesn't mean the beliefs they do hold are comparable to other religions. You have simply predetermined that you must defend them because you do not apply liberal principles to the subject.

What percentage of the world's Muslims believe in killing those who leave their "faith", for instance? How many Islamic countries have laws against blasphemy? How many Christians or Jews believe in killing those who leave their faith? How many Christian or Jewish countries have laws against blasphemy?

You are basing your political opinions on what you do not know about Islam. I base mine on what I do.

What are the sources for these "polls" that you allege are "credible"?

Who conducted them and what was their motivation in asking those loaded questions?

Who was polled and what methodology was used to extrapolate the results?

What experience did those pollsters have in conducting those polls?

Right now there is an ongoing effort to demonize Islam and conducting phony polls about obscure texts is one way to do it. Those "polls" are then spread around websites to inflame the gullible. This is called propaganda and disinformation.

Anyone who has actually lived amongst Muslims knows that they are no different to anyone else. They have jobs and families and they want their kids to get an education.

There are not 1.5 billion people hiding under your bed waiting to leap out and murder you in the middle of the night because you don't believe in Allah.

 

[Mertex]

You can certainly pretend all you want that Islam is no different than Christianity or Judaism, but the the polls reveal quite a different story.
It is quite obvious that not all Muslims hold the exact, same beliefs, but that doesn't mean the beliefs they do hold are comparable to other religions.

And you think that all Christians hold the exact, same beliefs? Apparently you are not aware that there are many Christian faiths.....Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Seven Day Adventists, Catholic,.......etc., etc.....why do you think they all have different names? Islam and Christianity are the same in that they have different beliefs within their religion apart from certain main ones where they are the same.

There are Christian extremists just like there are Islam extremists....to classify all of them the same is wrong.

 

[Coyote]

One of the defining characteristics of either ideology has to do with attitudes towards social justice and social order. In the etymology of the term "conservative", what is being conserved is social order and all the mores, institutions, and customs thus involved. Liberalism, on the other hand, involves a greater emphasis on social justice as it regards group dynamics in such a way as to safeguard the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority.

Despite our considerable venom towards each other - I do agree with these brief and succinct definitions. I think too, that is how Davidson Loehr framed it in his article.

What has thrown a monkey wrench into our perception of these terms is the dogmatic construct called "multiculturalism". While embraced by the non liberal portion of the left, multiculturalism is actually profoundly conservative in its actual function as it is in the business of preserving social order, institutions and mores -- and this at the expense of the individual. The only catch here is that what multiculturalists seek to conserve are the ingrained social institutions of OTHER cultures living within the midst and often times at the expense of their own culture.

Multiculturalism get's bandied about frequently - but is it any different than pluralism? We are a nation founded on religious pluralism and there was an interesting discussion on that in this thread: Our Founding Fathers included Islam Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The most prominent example of the difference between a liberal and a multiculturalist is in the approach to Islam. Islam is the most archly conservative ideology on the planet as it seeks to conserve a social order 1400 years in the past. Despite this, the illiberal multiculturalists have elevated the protection of Islam to their veritable cause celebre as they seek to protect Islam's extremely conservative attitudes from any criticism. A liberal, on the other hand, is quick to note the extreme misogyny of Islam, its disregard for the separation of religion and state, its lack of regard for individual rights, its opposition to humanist values, and the incontrovertible fact that it opposes every liberal principle imaginable.

Is it not possible that a liberal is seeking to protect the status of Islam, as a religion in a nation where all religions are protected and all followers deserving of equal treatment regardless of their faith? And in doing so - isn't it following the liberal impulse to emphasize social justice and safeguard the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority - whether we agree with or do not agree with that belief system?

This is within the US I mean. Freedom of religion is meaningless in many other nations.

People too often confuse authoritarian leftist for liberal, especially as so many lock-step leftists try to posit themselves as such. Bill Maher is a liberal. Christopher Hitchens was a liberal. Those whose habit it is to defend Islam at every turn are not. They are simply ultra-conformist practitioners of a form of group think that does not use liberal values as its basis because they have adopted a rigidly doctrinaire new ideology called multiculturalism.

I think both liberalism and conservatism at their extremes end up authoritarian.

 

[Coyote]

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

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

 

[Coyote]

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

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

 

[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".

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

 

[Coyote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet many of those liberal innovations are now among the very things conservatism seeks to preserve.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

Up to a point. The are strong proponents of individual rights that they support such as the 2nd Amendment and granting corporations "free speech rights" even if they are not American corporations.

But when it comes to voting rights and privacy rights, not so much. In fact you could even say that they actively oppose them for certain groups.

 

[Coyote]

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

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

Liberals veer towards socialism as a means to address economic inequalities and injustices, not for personal enrichment. What happens though, is that system that looks good on paper, or maybe works in small situations lends itself to abuse in practice. Capitalism is no different where "abuse" is defined as sweatshops and the underpaid labor and abusive practices lead to the enrichment of a very few.

 

[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".

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

Liberals veer towards socialism as a means to address economic inequalities and injustices, not for personal enrichment. What happens though, is that system that looks good on paper, or maybe works in small situations lends itself to abuse in practice. Capitalism is no different where "abuse" is defined as sweatshops and the underpaid labor and abusive practices lead to the enrichment of a very few.

We need to draw a distinction between liberal/conservative citizens and liberal/conservative elected officials. The citizen is usually sincere in their beliefs, whereas the politician ofter pretends to be of a certain belief in order to exploit that citizen's beliefs.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

For some who lean more toward anarchy than an ordered society, I would agree. But that is not what conservatism is IMO. Yes, modern day American conservatism is very big on individual rights and liberty, but they also allow for people to have the right and liberty to form whatever sort of society they may wish to have. More radical libertarianism--the kind I define with a capital "L" that may or may not designated the political partty--and a large chunk of the modern American left would deny many people the ability to do that. Libertarianism would deny that ability to everybody. The 'left' would more often deny it only to those groups they disagree with.

Example. A community that wanted to replicate Mayberry U.S.A., put that beloved creche on the courthouse lawn, do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence to start the school day, and teach intelligent design or creationism alongside Darwin or even to the exclusion of Darwin and prohibit certain kinds of businesses from locating inside the city limits and would support any business owner who was exercising his/her religious convictions would be able to be that community without interference or retaliation.

Such a community would be allowed to be that under conservatism even by conservatives who would want no part of that themselves. Conservatism promotes allowing people to be who and what they are and sees it as the people's right to order their society in a way that makes them happy no matter how offensive or wrong or stupid that might look to others. The role of the federal government would only be to prohibit one community from imposing its values or mandates on another.

But modern day American liberalism would strongly object to such a concept and would approve of the federal government intervening. It often appears that with modern day liberalism, liberty is only allowed those who do things correctly as liberalism defines correctness or as the government mandates.

 

[Coyote]

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

I disagree - one can be liberal and support capitalism. Liberals may impose more regulation, but they don't necessarily want socialism.

I think they want capitalism for themselves and socialism for everyone else. And isn't that the way most, if not all socialist systems work? The ones running things live in luxury and the rest of the population is poor.

Liberals veer towards socialism as a means to address economic inequalities and injustices, not for personal enrichment. What happens though, is that system that looks good on paper, or maybe works in small situations lends itself to abuse in practice. Capitalism is no different where "abuse" is defined as sweatshops and the underpaid labor and abusive practices lead to the enrichment of a very few.

We need to draw a distinction between liberal/conservative citizens and liberal/conservative elected officials. The citizen is usually sincere in their beliefs, whereas the politician ofter pretends to be of a certain belief in order to exploit that citizen's beliefs.

Good point - in that context, there is no difference between them

 

[Coyote]

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

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

For some who lean more toward anarchy than an ordered society, I would agree. But that is not what conservatism is IMO. Yes, modern day American conservatism is very big on individual rights and liberty, but they also allow for people to have the right and liberty to form whatever sort of society they may wish to have. More radical libertarianism--the kind I define with a capital "L" that may or may not designated the political partty--and a large chunk of the modern American left would deny many people the ability to do that. Libertarianism would deny that ability to everybody. The 'left' would more often deny it only to those groups they disagree with.

Example. A community that wanted to replicate Mayberry U.S.A., put that beloved creche on the courthouse lawn, do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence to start the school day, and teach intelligent design or creationism alongside Darwin or even to the exclusion of Darwin and prohibit certain kinds of businesses from locating inside the city limits and would support any business owner who was exercising his/her religious convictions would be able to be that community without interference or retaliation.

Such a community would be allowed to be that under conservatism even by conservatives who would want no part of that themselves. Conservatism promotes allowing people to be who and what they are and sees it as the people's right to order their society in a way that makes them happy no matter how offensive or wrong or stupid that might look to others. The role of the federal government would only be to prohibit one community from imposing its values or mandates on another.

But modern day American liberalism would strongly object to such a concept and would approve of the federal government intervening. It often appears that with modern day liberalism, liberty is only allowed those who do things correctly as liberalism defines correctness or as the government mandates.

You know...it's interesting because I see Liberalism in some of the same way you see Conservatism...except with differences...and to me, the biggest difference is equality.

Liberalism allows people to be who they are no matter what they are. It means a gay person can be married along with a straight person. It means business' can't say they won't serve someone because he is black or fire someone because he is gay. It means that everyone should be treated with equal dignity. Conservatism seeks to protect the dignity and rights of the business owner, liberalism the dignity and rights of the worker.

 

[jwoodie]

Liberal and Conservative have become pejorative terms more often used by their respective opponents. The real distinction is between those who hope to change human nature and those who try to make the best of it.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

For some who lean more toward anarchy than an ordered society, I would agree. But that is not what conservatism is IMO. Yes, modern day American conservatism is very big on individual rights and liberty, but they also allow for people to have the right and liberty to form whatever sort of society they may wish to have. More radical libertarianism--the kind I define with a capital "L" that may or may not designated the political partty--and a large chunk of the modern American left would deny many people the ability to do that. Libertarianism would deny that ability to everybody. The 'left' would more often deny it only to those groups they disagree with.

Example. A community that wanted to replicate Mayberry U.S.A., put that beloved creche on the courthouse lawn, do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence to start the school day, and teach intelligent design or creationism alongside Darwin or even to the exclusion of Darwin and prohibit certain kinds of businesses from locating inside the city limits and would support any business owner who was exercising his/her religious convictions would be able to be that community without interference or retaliation.

Such a community would be allowed to be that under conservatism even by conservatives who would want no part of that themselves. Conservatism promotes allowing people to be who and what they are and sees it as the people's right to order their society in a way that makes them happy no matter how offensive or wrong or stupid that might look to others. The role of the federal government would only be to prohibit one community from imposing its values or mandates on another.

But modern day American liberalism would strongly object to such a concept and would approve of the federal government intervening. It often appears that with modern day liberalism, liberty is only allowed those who do things correctly as liberalism defines correctness or as the government mandates.

You know...it's interesting because I see Liberalism in some of the same way you see Conservatism...except with differences...and to me, the biggest difference is equality.

Liberalism allows people to be who they are no matter what they are. It means a gay person can be married along with a straight person. It means business' can't say they won't serve someone because he is black or fire someone because he is gay. It means that everyone should be treated with equal dignity. Conservatism seeks to protect the dignity and rights of the business owner, liberalism the dignity and rights of the worker.

That definitely is part of the rhetoric, but it doesn't play out in what I see happening in society. I see that it is the left who will support activists attempting to punish a radio talk show host or television personality for taking what the left considers a politically incorrect stance or using a politically incorrect word. Who support a baker or a florist or other business owners exercising their religious beliefs having their businesses destroyed. Who among the left doesn't support having a historical piece of artwork with 'incorrect language' on it forcibly removed from a courthouse? Or who among the left stood up and objected when the ACLU demanded that a tiny village remove a tiny cross--a cross representing the historical origins of the village--be removed from the village seal?

It is these kinds of things that I see as imminently dangerous and destructive to everything I believe liberty is. If we are all allowed to be who and what we are only if who and what we are is politically correct, then there is no liberty at all.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

For some who lean more toward anarchy than an ordered society, I would agree. But that is not what conservatism is IMO. Yes, modern day American conservatism is very big on individual rights and liberty, but they also allow for people to have the right and liberty to form whatever sort of society they may wish to have. More radical libertarianism--the kind I define with a capital "L" that may or may not designated the political partty--and a large chunk of the modern American left would deny many people the ability to do that. Libertarianism would deny that ability to everybody. The 'left' would more often deny it only to those groups they disagree with.

Example. A community that wanted to replicate Mayberry U.S.A., put that beloved creche on the courthouse lawn, do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence to start the school day, and teach intelligent design or creationism alongside Darwin or even to the exclusion of Darwin and prohibit certain kinds of businesses from locating inside the city limits and would support any business owner who was exercising his/her religious convictions would be able to be that community without interference or retaliation.

Such a community would be allowed to be that under conservatism even by conservatives who would want no part of that themselves. Conservatism promotes allowing people to be who and what they are and sees it as the people's right to order their society in a way that makes them happy no matter how offensive or wrong or stupid that might look to others. The role of the federal government would only be to prohibit one community from imposing its values or mandates on another.

But modern day American liberalism would strongly object to such a concept and would approve of the federal government intervening. It often appears that with modern day liberalism, liberty is only allowed those who do things correctly as liberalism defines correctness or as the government mandates.

You know...it's interesting because I see Liberalism in some of the same way you see Conservatism...except with differences...and to me, the biggest difference is equality.

Liberalism allows people to be who they are no matter what they are. It means a gay person can be married along with a straight person. It means business' can't say they won't serve someone because he is black or fire someone because he is gay. It means that everyone should be treated with equal dignity. Conservatism seeks to protect the dignity and rights of the business owner, liberalism the dignity and rights of the worker.

That definitely is part of the rhetoric, but it doesn't play out in what I see happening in society. I see that it is the left who will support activists attempting to punish a radio talk show host or television personality for taking what the left considers a politically incorrect stance or using a politically incorrect word. Who support a baker or a florist or other business owners exercising their religious beliefs having their businesses destroyed. Who among the left doesn't support having a historical piece of artwork with 'incorrect language' on it forcibly removed from a courthouse? Or who among the left stood up and objected when the ACLU demanded that a tiny village remove a tiny cross--a cross representing the historical origins of the village--be removed from the village seal?

It is these kinds of things that I see as imminently dangerous and destructive to everything I believe liberty is. If we are all allowed to be who and what we are only if who and what we are is politically correct, then there is no liberty at all.

There is nothing even remotely "politically correct" about upholding the Constitutional right of freedom from religion.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Or in short the Corporatia versus the Commons.

Interesting. Yet conservatives, American conservatives - strongly promote individual rights and freedom, with little interference from the state. Individualism seems to be a trademark of political conservatism when it comes to rights.

For some who lean more toward anarchy than an ordered society, I would agree. But that is not what conservatism is IMO. Yes, modern day American conservatism is very big on individual rights and liberty, but they also allow for people to have the right and liberty to form whatever sort of society they may wish to have. More radical libertarianism--the kind I define with a capital "L" that may or may not designated the political partty--and a large chunk of the modern American left would deny many people the ability to do that. Libertarianism would deny that ability to everybody. The 'left' would more often deny it only to those groups they disagree with.

Example. A community that wanted to replicate Mayberry U.S.A., put that beloved creche on the courthouse lawn, do the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence to start the school day, and teach intelligent design or creationism alongside Darwin or even to the exclusion of Darwin and prohibit certain kinds of businesses from locating inside the city limits and would support any business owner who was exercising his/her religious convictions would be able to be that community without interference or retaliation.

Such a community would be allowed to be that under conservatism even by conservatives who would want no part of that themselves. Conservatism promotes allowing people to be who and what they are and sees it as the people's right to order their society in a way that makes them happy no matter how offensive or wrong or stupid that might look to others. The role of the federal government would only be to prohibit one community from imposing its values or mandates on another.

But modern day American liberalism would strongly object to such a concept and would approve of the federal government intervening. It often appears that with modern day liberalism, liberty is only allowed those who do things correctly as liberalism defines correctness or as the government mandates.

You know...it's interesting because I see Liberalism in some of the same way you see Conservatism...except with differences...and to me, the biggest difference is equality.

Liberalism allows people to be who they are no matter what they are. It means a gay person can be married along with a straight person. It means business' can't say they won't serve someone because he is black or fire someone because he is gay. It means that everyone should be treated with equal dignity. Conservatism seeks to protect the dignity and rights of the business owner, liberalism the dignity and rights of the worker.

That definitely is part of the rhetoric, but it doesn't play out in what I see happening in society. I see that it is the left who will support activists attempting to punish a radio talk show host or television personality for taking what the left considers a politically incorrect stance or using a politically incorrect word. Who support a baker or a florist or other business owners exercising their religious beliefs having their businesses destroyed. Who among the left doesn't support having a historical piece of artwork with 'incorrect language' on it forcibly removed from a courthouse? Or who among the left stood up and objected when the ACLU demanded that a tiny village remove a tiny cross--a cross representing the historical origins of the village--be removed from the village seal?

It is these kinds of things that I see as imminently dangerous and destructive to everything I believe liberty is. If we are all allowed to be who and what we are only if who and what we are is politically correct, then there is no liberty at all.

There is nothing even remotely "politically correct" about upholding the Constitutional right of freedom from religion.

There is no Constitutional right to freedom from religion. There is only a Constitutional right that government cannot dictate to you what your religious beliefs must be. It cannot dictate how you do or do not exercise your religious beliefs short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights. And it cannot dictate to you that you have to have religious beliefs.

Modern American conservatism believes and practices that philosophy. Modern American liberalism would too often dictate what is and is not acceptable in matters of religion.