What is a Liberal and Conservative these days?

[David Octavius]

I thought I knew but these last few years have confused me, what is your idea of a liberal and a conservative and who, in your opinion, in Washington embody those principals?

To me a neo-liberal is someone who believes that government ought to take an active role in a person to preserve liberty and happiness. They are more apt to support Social Security, Welfare and Medicare. This can help many people but this also naturally lead to higher taxes to support these programs, too much regulation of the economy and could lead to fiscal trouble

A Conservative is a believes that government ought to have a small a role in a person life as possible. They are more apt to support privatization of Social Security and Medicare and that people must pull themselves up by their own boot straps. This may give us more individual freedom but this also would naturally leads to not enough regulations that can lead to higher poverty and volatility of privatized programs.

Now the question is what would be the foreign policy of each? Would a liberal be more apt to work with other countries and relax regulations and a conservative be more isolationist and try to protect domestic trade in an effort to protect jobs? How about on the war on terror? I have no idea

All the ideologies have their advantages and disadvantages but does labels apply to our leaders today who may call themselves liberal or conservative?


-- David

[6SpeedTA95]

The lines have definately been blurred...

For the most part I grew up a conservative republican, as I got a little older (8th grade on pretty much) my interest in politics, the country etc, grew. The result was a shift from being a traditional conservative to being more libertarian. I'm definately in favor of economic conservatism and being socially moderate or even liberal. The key peice of the democrat social agena that keeps me from signing on is the emphasis put on government instead of pesronal responsbility. We desperately need more emphasis on personal responsibility in this country. What keeps me from signing onto the conservative social agenda is completely different. Conservatives tend to put much more emphasis on personal responsbility but they lose sight of individual freedoms (see gay marriage/unions). So I'm really kinda stuck in the middle on that.

Economics I'm pretty "conservative" but really it comes down to freedom again. I want the freedom to spend my money how I want to spend it, the government has no business telling me they're going to take 20, 30 or 40% of my paycheck for various taxes just like they have no business telling me who I can or can not marry, or what sexual acts I may or may not perform in MY home between two consenting adults.

Basically I think both parties and both ideologies (conservatives and liberals) for the most part are screwed up

[thatguyoverthere]

Great thread. Welcome to the forum!

I agree the lines have been blurred. Probably much more than that.

When I was growing up, liberals were the ones characterized as wanting to be the world's policeman. Now, that's been turned on its head when conservatives claim that we went into Iraq to liberate the people from a cruel dictator.

Conservatives used to be for less government and more personal freedom, but now we have Bush making government bigger and more intrusive (phone taps, mail searches, ect.) Conservatives used to be for fiscal responsibility, and now we have Mr. Bush lowering taxes while funding an expensive war. Conservatives used to be for personal responsibility; but we had 9/11 happen on Bush's watch, the national security advisor during the largest national security breach in history didn't get fired or repremanded but promoted, the CIA director that provided the faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD got the medal of freedom for his work. And for all this and more, the "conservatives" never Bush responsible. Instead, they rewarded him with a second term.

Luckily, most real conservatives have realized that Bush is no conservative, and have rightly spoken up against him. Anyone who supports Bush at this point has every right to do so, but I would have to question their understanding of traditional conservative values.

Liberals want to take money from people that earned it and give it to people who didn't; welfare queens and all that. And they want to take away guns and Christmas.

But seriously, as a liberal I do believe that a government by, of, and for the people can be a positive force for progress in a civilized society. The government should be there to protect and serve. A hand up, not a hand out and all that noise.

When someone goes to court, they want a fair trial, don't they? Isn't it reasonable to want to be treated fairly in any sort of dispute? I am well aware that "life isn't fair", but I do think that most everyone hopes that in any sort of mediated dispute that they get treated fairly.

I am of the opinion that government shouldn't exist to tilt the tables toward one side or the other so that one has an advantage, just that government should attempt to make the table as even as possible so that everyone has the opportunity to get a fair shot in life.

As to who in Washington embodies those values, I can't really say. How those values should align with foreign policy and approaches to the war on terror is tricky to define too. Do a majority of conservatives today really believe that we should be the world's policeman? Are most liberals now isolationists? These are all good questions.

[MKULTRA]

The labels are meaningless now and largely used to herd people into one camp or another and both camps usually resemble each other quite a bit.

A lot of these terms were popularized around the early 1900s when we had a major consolidation of most of our newspapers and radio stations by private banking interests.

[goldenponderbob]

If somone says something you disagree with you move as far left as necessary so that speaker is right relative to you, at that point he
becomes a NAZI. Then, you simply dismiss the comment hatespeech.

When someone else says something that sounds a bit socialist, you may have to move yourself right (no more than is absolutely necessary) a bit
so the speaker is left, relative to you, at which point he, and his comment becomes dismissable a Marxist propaganda.

The reason both of the above seem workable is that most of us see
stuff that affects us politically from our vantage point in the middle.

The only reasons people leave the middle, is when their words become famous and they inadvertently get themselves defined by them, or they attach themselves to a group with a radical agenda for personal or short sighted political gain.

Keep your eye on Hillary, she controls the middle ground and knows how to
hold it.

goldenponderbob

[MKULTRA]

LMFAO!!! Middle ground of what? Hell?

There is no middle ground. It's freedom or not. You can call it whatever you want. All these labels are just ways to stop yourself from thinking. Issues should be analyzed from a personal rights perspective and then taken for what they are, not for what or how they are labeled. The same is true for politicians and policy in general.

[David Octavius]

So in other words, politics has become even more of a name calling, childish game, in a time when we need great leadership, to try to get ones point across?

If so, then Reason is almost dead, I think someone uses Thomas Paine as an avatar, we could use a person like that right now

If I had to assign blame for this, my first target would be all of the 24 hour news channels who fill up all that air time with overanalyzed, blow hard, know nothing pundits who are more like characters for entertainment to get ratings

[Diamond Cross]

To me, modern liberals are socialists because they want big government to run everything, but the conservatives are not much different. I believe conservatives are theocratic Christians, that is they want as big as a government as liberals, but they want it based on Christian rules and laws.


Added:
For more information on what I mean here's a link:

Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

[Pro Street]

conservatives call me a liberal
liberals call me a conservative

it's funny.

[Diamond Cross]

I get the same thing.

[MKULTRA]

Yep, I get the same a lot.

I wouldn't say conservatives want Christian law They wrap everything they do in that flag and cross though. It's not like they honor the 10 commandments through the way they live or their policy anymore than Democrats do.

I just believe the two parties are controlled by the same interests and operating off of the same play book. They are going to do what is best for big government, big business, and big banking. And right now that is globalism, one world government, NWO, whatever you want to call it. It doesn't matter what it's called; only the results matter.

I think the media's job is to keep people in a constant state of mental masturbation. They talk about non-issues and even the issues that are real that they do talk about, they just lead the cattle in one direction or another, both directions leading to the same destination. The media is nothing more than a massive Judas Goat.

That is why this next election you will not hear anything about the New Freedom Commission, Hate Speech Laws, North American Union, the Federal Reserve, our presidents selling WMD technology to China, our military being almost 40% foreigners, the use of mercs overseas, or anything else that really matters. They'll talk about the Iraq War, but it will be a watered down play between two charlatans. They'll spend most of their time talking about race, sex, religion and ridiculous scandal after ridiculous scandal, whatever diverts the people's attention away from what is really going on.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

I think the media's job is to keep people in a constant state of mental masturbation. They talk about non-issues and even the issues that are real that they do talk about, they just lead the cattle in one direction or another, both directions leading to the same destination. The media is nothing more than a massive Judas Goat.

I agree with most of the assessments in your post, but the truth might be a bit more mundane. I worked for the biggest news radio station in the southeast (one of the biggest in the country actually) and had many, many hours watching the newsroom in action. They have tvs, radios, monitors, newspapers, and recording equipment all over the place. When they would do the top & bottom hour news, they would tape the news on the competing channel, and then scour it for more news and/or to critique their own story coverage/story placement.

My point is that, other than interviewing cops on the phone and sending out reporters for local stories, most (I'd say a good 80-90%) of the "news" there was gathered from other media sources. (Sources that are likely sitting around gathering and gauging their news based on other sources!) Media news feels compelled to carry a story if the other guys are, and disinclined to carry stories if the others aren't. What the story is actually about or whether it is actually important is not the primary concern.

[TheScatman]

I think a quote from Ludwiq von Mises is appropriate here:

"The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is “left” and what is “right”? Why should Hitler be “right” and Stalin, his temporary friend, be “left”? Who is “reactionary” and who is “progressive”? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. “Orthodoxy” is not an evil if the doctrine on which the “orthodox” stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is “nationalist,” those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?"

[motivez]

Well, certainly Republicans as of late are not conservative except in the social sense. They've completely abandoned fiscal conservatism in favor of pandering to the radical religious "right" in this country because it helps them win elections.

They're completely for big government and government intervention into the lives of individuals whenever they feel it helps their cause (see: Shavio, abortion, gay marriage, etc, etc) with the radical evangelicals.

I think that as a country we're in the process of undergoing a pretty big political shift with regards to terminology and what it means to be this or that.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, certainly Republicans as of late are not conservative except in the social sense. They've completely abandoned fiscal conservatism in favor of pandering to the radical religious "right" in this country because it helps them win elections.

They're completely for big government and government intervention into the lives of individuals whenever they feel it helps their cause (see: Shavio, abortion, gay marriage, etc, etc) with the radical evangelicals.

I think that as a country we're in the process of undergoing a pretty big political shift with regards to terminology and what it means to be this or that.

I agree with all of it, especially the last part. Soon a moderate will take on some of the descriptions of a conservative, being fiscally smart, smaller government (more about preserving a persons privacy). While a liberal may take on more of an untouchable description getting oh so close to a socialist. As for conservatives today, I'm not so sure, there are too many powerful people who call themselves this to say it will descend into a fascist belief, instead they will probably lose the political power they have today and realign itself and come back. Its way too early to tell, but this time in our history may be the best time since early last century for a third party to become major and one of the major parties to become a minor one or even disband. It has happened before, a few times.

[JaJae]

Over Bush's term I've seen liberal and conservative change on almost all key issues other than religious social issues.

I've found that when one party changes a stance, the other party takes the opposite stance. In short liberals and conservatives these days are both hypocrites. Their views are tied into their party's hypocritical and ever changing views. When one party shifts their views to a similar agreeance with the opposing party, their opposing party swaps to the opposite view. When the first party changes their mind, as does the other party. In short, liberals in my opinion can be defined as disagreeing with liberals and liberals can be defined as disagreeing with conservatives. Their hypocritical ideals change with the wind.

Libertarians can be considered "conservative" by a degree and they're the only ones true to their ideals.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Libertarians....the only ones true to their ideals.

That is only because they have no power.