So...what is a liberal...what is a conservative?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by friendorfoe, Sep 30, 2005.

Loading...
  1. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Just from thinking about Western history for a few minutes, I can identify a whole set of distinctions that are vaguely (and often inconsistently) associated with the 'liberal' and 'conservative' battle-flags.

    Medieval and modern.

    Church vs state.

    Religious vs secular.

    Future vs past.

    Crafts vs mass production.

    Rich vs poor.

    Reason vs tradition.

    Art vs science.

    City vs rural.

    Established regimes vs insurrection.

    Interdependence vs self sufficiency.

    Mercantilism vs free markets.

    Intellectuals vs the common people.

    Aristocracy vs democracy.

    Hereditary aristocracy vs meritocracy.

    Egalitarianism vs elitism.

    Opportunity vs results.

    Centralized vs distributed.

    Top down vs bottom up.

    Uniformity vs diversity.

    Skepticism vs utopianism.

    Optimism vs pessimism.

    Individual vs collective.

    Employer vs employee.

    Public vs private.

    Profit vs theft.

    Natural law vs utilitarianism.

    Noble savage vs primitive savagery.

    Social institutions as the problem vs social institutions as the solution.

    Planning vs evolutionary reponse to novel events.

    Criticism vs belonging.

    White vs non-white.

    Male vs female.

    Western vs non-Western.

    Insiders vs outsiders.

    And countless more... it's not very hard to generate them.

    My point is that there probably aren't any two political philosophies that somehow encapusulate coherent and consistent positions on all of that. There are probably more than two possible positions on any simgle one of these issues. Lots of subtleties are involved with understanding them, and their interrelations and mutual implications are anything but clear.
     
  2. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Wow, what a pessimistic view of human condition, Bill!

    I think societies are intermingled at various levels, being politics just one of them. Nevertheless, your assertion is so interesting. Have you heard about Manuel Castell´s work on the network society? I humbly recommend its reading as it deals with many of the aspects you mention above. Castells is a Spanish scholar of the Knowledge and Information Society. He is as well a Professor at UCLA or Berkeley (I can’t recall now).

    Sometimes I wonder if a political section is appropriate for a distance learning forum. Of course, I keep my conclusions to myself but I think that after coming several years here people need to relate to each other in a deeper way. For me this agora provides an opportunity to reflect on different issues, often very different from those I have to deal with on a daily basis. Besides writing about a subject is an excellent way to clarify one’s ideas, to get in touch with one’s thoughts. And, why deny it? I also come to this section of political discussions to improve my English. Besides, reading here *certain* posters helps me shape my own ideology. I have met some nice people. And also a couple of morons….. Nevertheless I don´t perceive this site as a place for "social bonding with the homies on our chosen side of the line".

    And regarding the topic opening this thread I think there are no substantial differences between the Right and the Left. Would anyone tell me any major difference between Blair´s or Bush’s policies, for instance? They are just subtle, and only manifest themselves in very specific matters. I think Left vs. Right is a debate that belongs to the past. There are deeper motives for disagreement. Capitalists vs. anti system movements, I think it is the major threat.
     
  3. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    How about autonomy versus command and control?
     
  4. friendorfoe

    friendorfoe Active Member

    Why......a progressive conservative liberal of course.

    Glad you asked...:D
     
  5. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Political discussions used to all be in the off-topics forum here. But I vividly remember one night just before the last presidential election when we were all hittin' it hot and heavy with political threads and arguments in the off-topics area... to the point that virtually all off-topics threads that weren't political had disappeared from the first screenful of off-topic thread listings; and suddenly, right before my eyes, the political forum was created, and all the political threads were moved over there. I presumed it was Chip who did it. And he obviously did it because the political discourse had become too much; had overpowered the off-topics area; and needed its own place. I'm told that the IT/computer forum was created for much the same sort of reason during a time when the IT industry was a little hotter and more popular than it is today; and posts about it were dominating the regular forums.

    That is it, exactly, in my opinion. The off-topic, political and even religious discussions keep things interesting. The central theme of distance education is never lost here. Everyone knows what is this place's core competency. The ancillary discussions -- even the religious ones -- help to enrich the place.
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    BillDayson
    Interesting observations Bill. And it it seems at various times many of these positions are reversed.
     
  7. miguelstefan

    miguelstefan New Member

    But,
    Carter (D): None.
    Reagan (R): Granada
    G. H. Bush (R): Panama, Gulf
    Clinton (D): None
    G. W. Bush: Afganistan (Completelly necessary and justified. But what has it accomplished?), and Irak.

    Plus, I don't think anyone would argue that WWI, WWII were not justified. War is a necessary evil which should not be taken lightly.

    Yep, I guess I did.:confused:
     
  8. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Clinton: Kosovo, Somalia.
     
  9. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Few argue that WWII was unjustified. In fact it's the only one that U.S. ever fought for which I might have signed up.

    However, many, myself obviously included, see no reason the U.S. should have entered WWI.

    -=Steve=-
     
  10. miguelstefan

    miguelstefan New Member

    As I understad it those were UN actions were the US had an active role. I could be mistaken as I was living overseas at the time and did not have access to as many mediums as I do here (no cable or internet).

    You are probably right. However, that war caused such a large mess in Europe, that it was probably in the US best interest at the time to put a stop to it.
     
  11. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Somalia: Inherited from Bush Sr.

    Kosovo: Had an exit strategy.
     
  12. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    You forgot Lebanon (240 Marine families won't). Graneda was merely a way for the administration to divert attention from their screwup in Lebanon. (a place where we had no business being).
     
  13. miguelstefan

    miguelstefan New Member

    How could I forget Lebanon? Another unjustified war in the name of the republicans. Thanks for reminding me.
     
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Today, going on a decade later, Kosovo is still under foreign military occupation. The Europeans don't want it declaring independence, fearing the impact that would have on ethnic-minority irredentist movements elsewhere. But the Kosovo Albanians will settle for nothing less. In the mean time, the Serbian minority in the province has been driven out.

    If you know how to normalize that situation, you are smarter than either the Democrats, the Republicans, or the EU. (That's not difficult admittedly, but I still doubt if you have an answer.)
     
  15. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    I have an idea. It's probably naive and I'm hoping that other members will cut it up and send it back to me in some different form because my knowledge of these things is more limited than that of many of you other members.

    Please picture a set of concentric circles. (the number is not important right now)

    The inner most circle is yourself and the next is your immediate family, then your extended family, your neighborhood, your town, your county, your state, your region, etc. I think you get the picture.

    The issue is one of "obligation." To whom do you have an "obligation?" Yourself, certainly. Your immediate family, of course. Beyond this things sometimes seem a bit murky.

    To what extent am I obligated to my neighbor? Clearly we share certain common interests but where is the line drawn? My neighbor wants to improve the local schools. So do I. My neighbor wants to establish a local bowling alley next to my property. I'm not so happy now. My neighbors daughter is my daughters best friend. Put it all together and then tell me, where is my obligation to my neighbor?

    Why do I send money to help victims of Katrina but not to other people around the world who have suffered similar disasters? They are Americans? What if they are assholes? Are they still as deserving simply by virtue of being American?

    I have thought that the difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the conservative draws the line of obligation at an inner circle. The conservative sees their obligation to others as ending at a more inner circle within these concentric circles. The most liberal would take care of everyone. The most conservative would care for only himself.

    I know that I've set up conflicts with this system. There are exceptions to the rule. Please add on.
    Jack
     
  16. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    The issue is not obligation but who determines what is an obligation. Whether obligation be decided by the individual or by others and forced upon the individual.
     
  17. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I've wondered this myself. How many people even know how badly Grenada was mashed up by Hurricane Ivan last year? It was apocalyptic. And what about Haiti? It's right in our own back yard -- closer than Puerto Rico! -- but no one was up in arms last year when 1,500 people were killed by mudslides triggered by a tropical storm. (Last year was a tough one in the Caribbean!)

    -=Steve=-
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2005
  18. Kit

    Kit New Member

    Which is probably why most people shy away from either extreme. The one who would care only for himself, without exception, could easily be seen as selfishly heartless in the extreme as well as unrealistic enough to never realize the possibility that he too may become one of those exceptions he scorns. The one who would care for everyone, without limitation, could easily be seen as naive to the extreme in expecting that any sort of utopia could ever be possible whenever human beings with all their failings are involved.

    Kit
     
  19. miguelstefan

    miguelstefan New Member

    Haiti has a situation that I became fairly familiar with when I lived in the Dominican Republic. First, the land is not well suited to suport life. Deforestation has destroyed most of their rivers. Only two water sources are left. The land is so damaged that is not posible for them to have a viable agriculture. Furthermore, the country is so over-populated (10,000,000 inhabitants plus a conservetive estimate of 3,000,000 in the Dominican Republic and 2,000,000 more in the USA) that most people are forced to live in spaces that are so unfit that the make the worse gheto look like a project for luxury homes. There is virtualy no work, health programs, sanitary systems, electricity, etc... The solution is no were in sight.

    And to make matters worse during Aristide presidency the state became a "bridge" for drugs to the US. Therefore drug usage is one of the highest in the continent. They also have the largest HIV (combined with other STDs and diseases like gonorea, tubeculosis, etc...) infected population in America with numbers that rival those of some African countries.

    The situation is heart breaking and has no solution in sight. I believe the question should be what could be the solution and who should be in charge of it. Maybe the French should lead a true relief effort with the cooperation of the USA and the EC to solve the problems of their former colony.

    May God help the people of Haiti.
     
  20. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    Most of this is really pointless though. Both sides are completely caught up in whats ok for me is not ok for the other side. Neither of the big two parties can deny that.I am a libertarian. Government is totally incompetant at every turn, which solidifies the libertarian point. There is no doubt that socially the Dems want to tell people who to like, what to pay for things, and what to believe. The Rep want total dedication to the cause, i.e. the fundementalist christian. On issues i find myself siding on the right pretty consistantly, but I am conservative not a republicain. The idea of true conservatism supports drug legalization and gay marriage and fisical responsiblity. Things the republicain will never go for. ALthough while clinton was in power they were financially welll behaved, there social policies encourage govt dependence, NO is a good example of that.


    The idea that conservative dont care for people is hogwash. They just hold people responsible for THEIR actions. That usually does not fair well in liberal crowds because they feel as the should never be judges or held responsible for there actions. This doesnt mean its ok to let people starve, just not enable people to be dependents.



    Use that big ol' organ..between you ears. Realize that neither the big two really stand for anything but themselves and quit. Become a libertarian or Green. Be a true conservative or liberal instead of a convienent one..


    just my thoughs....
     

Share This Page