It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is a Conservative / Liberal?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
To me, Conservative means smaller Fed Government, less regulation of markets, and fewer criminal laws, albeit with stiffer penalties for the violent crimes. It means slower and more secure economic growth and slower progress in general. It means no new taxes, or new laws. It means no "re-districting" or bastardization of the Census projects. It means family values, but not any single religion or idealogy! Ideally it means less work hours and more family time!

I am considered a Conservative, but I still have concerns for the environment. I still think the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy is illogical. I still think there is a place for same-sex unions although I don't like calling them "marriages". I don't oppose a National Healthcare Bill, although I really despise this particular monstrosity. I think Social Security should have a private option or be entirely voluntary! I don't want to cut any Social Programs, but I want to get rid of the incentives to have more children or stop earning incomes or becoming disabled.

If I am a Conservative, can I still think Gays should be allowed in Military?

If I am a Liberal, can I still think this Healthcare Bill is a ridiculous political attempt and not a true and honest endeavour?

What if I am all for drilling off the coasts, but I still see the strategic benefit to buying our oil from around the world and hoarding our own?

I think a certain Herb should be legalized, and most other drug penalties should be less severe, does that make me Liberal?

I think a little torture in a battlefield scenario is important and useful, but it should never be allowed in a prison setting! Which view is that?

I think the Death Penalty should be left up to the victim's family, not the court! I don't think anybody should ever get Life without Parole! What is the point of that? Just a waste of a life and a bunch of money? Therefore, I am neither for or against the death penalty, so which side of the fence does that land me on?

I think abortion is flatly wrong when used for Birth Control, but I think the mother's life is more valuable than the infant's, and doctors should make decisions according to that precept. Where does that put me?

What are the Deal Breakers of calling yourself either Liberal or Conservative?!?
Are there certain beliefs that I absolutely must hold dear or else be kicked out of one camp or the other?




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I forgot to give credit to the other thread that inspired this discussion! Here is a link to the thread titled "Conservatives Don't Use Logic in Making Political Decisions"

Thanks to Audas for bringing up this debate!



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think the question isnt what is the difference between conservative and liberal, as much as it is, what is the difference between.....

conservative/republican

Democrat/liberal

I think too often people associate these things as one and the same and they are different.

We pretty much know what conservatives believe. However we get a bad rap because of far right republicans and their corruption.

The same as the Democrats use their powers of corruption as well.

Its my opinion that the two party system intentionally uses the conservative/liberal thought processes and ideology to confuse the issue even more, thereby making SURE that there will always be a two party system, therefore one of the two parties will always hold the power.

You can be a republican with liberal views or a democrat with conservative views.

The same way you can be an liberal independent , or a conservative independent.

The sooner people realize what the differences are and that associating either the conservative or liberal ideology with any particular "party" is false, the sooner we can move on to getting rid of this two party system.

We need to do this and recognize this so we can proceed to take the power out of the hands of these corrupt politicians.

There needs to be another option where liberal/conservative views can come together so that we can make COMMON SENSE decisions about things we face as a nation.

The PTB on both sides would like to have you believe that there is only one way or the other, and they use the guise of conservatism and liberalism as a way to keep the masses bickering while they continue to exert their power and control.

Things arent alway so cut and dry.......like you stated earlier about drilling.

YES common sense says we should be drilling and utilizing our own oil, if nothing more then to stockpile it. We can continue to buy oil from other countries, but we need to end our dependency on it. In turn this also allows us to SAVE money by using our own processed oil, to operate WHILE at the same time continuing to strive to find a better means to alternative fuels, that are better for the environment , and living conditions of the cities in the US. NOT ONLY that , but as a country it will allow us to be PRODUCING something again, possibly better than any other nation, and in turn make more money for our country.

See that thought process facilitates BOTH needs of liberals and conservatives, and offers a common sense approach to the issue.

However the Democrats/Republicans would have you believe differently....
Dems: We must not drill for oil at all, stop our use of oil all together and start buying and making green cars. Well sorry man but we dont have the money as a country to pursue it that way, and we cant spend our way to freedom from fossil fuels, it has to be a gradual change.

Rep. We must drill here and we must drill now, theres no other choice, and while we are at it, lets land grab as many areas of the world we can so we can run roughshod over the industry to keep making money.

That doesnt work either, you have to have more foresight for your own country and its needs, and facts are that we NEED to get away from fossil fuels if for NOTHING else, that its becoming a health hazard in larger cities to the people that live there, and its a non renewable resource. You cant treat other countries like that and expect to be respectable as a nation.

I know i over simplified things but its just one example in the thousands that these two parties use to exert control over us.....

As people of the US we need to not be thinking on such linear terms and realize that things can come to a happy medium that facilitates the needs of people on both sides of the thinking pool.

The partisan crap is killing us as a nation.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


You are correct, and the Two-Party system forces us into a "Lessor of Two Evils" decision that is illogical. "The illogical reduction of choices." An abusive negotiation technique and a manipulative sales practice, but it seems to perfectly OK in politics!

Vote for this guy he makes sense on 51% of his views, but the other guy only makes sense on 49% of his views. Either way you are going to get way more than you bargained for!!

We are forced into a compromise before we even start the argument!

So, I guess the revised Question is: What Republican views are inherently Liberal and what Democratic views are inherently Conservative?

Or, for those that know the political parties well, is there a party that is more flexible in their views and able to make logical deductions for each independent issue??? Or, How hard is it to start a new political party?



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
This is a good thread, and I think it's important to get this stuff out there. Especially with the ridiculous thread you brought up about conservatives not using logic. The partisanship on this site has become... sickening over the past year or so. (Perhaps its always like this around election time, I wasn't around in 2004 so I can't comment.)

Now, if I may leave these here:





Conservatism refers to various political and social philosophies that support tradition and the status quo.




Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.


These are liberalism and conservatism at their most basic levels. Yes, a good political theorists could write hundreds of theses on what it actually means to be a conservative or liberal, but at the core these are the definitions of the two philosophies.

A liberal might describe the two ideals as:

Stagnation (conservatism) vs. Progression (liberalism)

A conservative might describe them as:

Morality (conservatism) vs. Immorality (liberalism)


And that is simply because both sides have their skewed views about the other.

An extremely politically biased person will refer to the two ideals as:

Illogical, unthinking morons (insert opposing party here) vs. Geniuses (my party).


Thus, it is very easy to spot a partisan hack when you see one, as they will blatantly deride any member of the opposite ideology (or that they perceive as belonging to the opposite ideology), simply because they are brainwashed into doing so.



Now, I think it would be exceptionally difficult to find a tried and true conservative, or a tried and true liberal. That is because we are all human, we all have opinions, and we don't usually tend to form those opinions based strictly upon political ideologies. In actuality, most of us form our opinions based on our life experience, our upbringing, and our environment.

To answer some of your questions in the OP:



If I am a Conservative, can I still think Gays should be allowed in Military?


Of course you can, although that is not a conservative position. Traditionally, homosexuals are not allowed in the military. Therefore, the conservative position would be to maintain that status quo. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is a liberal position.



If I am a Liberal, can I still think this Healthcare Bill is a ridiculous political attempt and not a true and honest endeavour?


This one is a bit more tricky. The healthcare bill is certainly a liberal endeavor. It aims to change the current status of healthcare in the US, so that fact is undeniable.

However, many liberals disagree with this healthcare plan, because, as you succinctly stated, it is not an honest endeavor.

Therefore, I would posit that:

If you are against the healthcare bill because you want to keep insurance exactly the way it is, then you are holding the conservative position.

If you are against the healthcare bill because you want a better attempt at changing healthcare, then you are holding the liberal position.



So, as you can see, we are all a mix of liberal and conservative. Some things we want changed, some things we want to keep the same. I don't think there is a single person here who believes in revoking the Bill of Rights, for example. We all hold the conservative position that these rights should be maintained as the status quo for our nation and its people. (Now, whether or not those rights actually are being maintained is another discussion for another thread entirely.
)



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


Thats an outstanding synopsis, you earned your PhD!

Now for another fundamental question.



Conservatism refers to various political and social philosophies that support tradition and the status quo.


Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.


"Individual Liberty" is typically considered a Conservative viewpoint. IE. State's Rights, Fewer Law Changes, Less Fiddling by the Government,
***but in the US, "Tradition" falls back to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and strong Religious Tendencies, including Religious Freedom and "Equality".

There seems to be an inversion of philosophies there?

I think that is a key point supporting your response! That even fundamental beliefs of each camp are actually not cut and dry, and they can be supported or even hijacked completely by the other side!



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready


There seems to be an inversion of philosophies there?

I think that is a key point supporting your response! That even fundamental beliefs of each camp are actually not cut and dry, and they can be supported or even hijacked completely by the other side!


Yes, that is a good point and I think this is where the 'left to right' paradigm starts to lose its validity.

Many people (including myself) prefer the 4-directional political compass, which puts right and left at the right and left ends of the spectrum respectively, puts authoritarianism at the top, and puts libertarianism at the bottom.

The right and left direction deals with economic issues, and the top-down direction deals with social issues. I think the major problem with politics in our country today, is that most people are too busy focusing on the left vs. the right to see that most of our elected leaders are authoritarian in nature. I would assume that the great majority of free-thinking people would consider themselves libertarian, as indeed our country was founded upon libertarian ideals.

I think a central problem with clashing political ideologies these days is that they both have misconceptions about the others' beliefs.

For example, a 'conservative' poster will typically bemoan the left for wanting "big government" and taking almost fascist-like control over private industry.

A 'liberal' poster will likewise blame the right for fascist-like international policies and an authoritarian method for handling domestic issues.

In reality, people on both sides of the argument want the same thing, a more libertarian form of government. While these people waste their time and energy arguing, the two-party system continues to put authoritarian leaders in place who exist to server corporate interests and unknown higher powers.


It's quite disheartening when I actually think about it, how misguided and, indeed, screwed we all are when it comes to politics in this country. While there are certainly people out there who actually do support authoritarian rule structure (people who support preemptive international conflict, reduction of individual rights, establishment of a police state), I think if we actually take the time to listen to each others' points of view, we will find that the vast majority of us just want to remain free.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Realizing that all of this political stuff really isn't my bailiwick, I may not be too far off from other people so I'm going to throw in my two cents.

For starters, I appreciate this thread, GRA. It gives me an opportuity to think about what I belive and that's always appreciated.

I don't know why, but for me, the words Liberal and Conservative always have very religious undertones. Perhaps it's just the glasses I have always viewed the world through, or maybe there is something more to it, I don't have a clue.

To me, it seems pretty simple, and that's my first warning sign that I'm way off the mark.


'Conservative' to me means buttoned up, proper, stern and unyielding.

'Liberal' to me means giving animals 'human rights', caring more about the ruby crested swallow than the housing of five thousand people and not really caring how someone else lives, as log as it isn't in my backyard.

I know I oversimplify things, but Conservative to me is "anti-(insert thing here") and Liberal is "make up your own mind." Conservative is 'pro-life' and Liberal is 'pro-choice.' I don't want to derail anything here, so please remember that this is just my perception, acquired through many years of brainwashing and complacency.

I suppose I try to ride the fence. I don't know if it's more self-preservation or just a lack of understanding of my core values. Sometimes I really don't understand what all of the arguing is about. People throw those two terms around at each other like they are insults. I guess I just don't get it.

At any given time I would think that we are all riding that fence to varying degrees and like most other labels, their use is more often than not counterproductive.

It's going to take me a while to digest this discussion and I really appreciate it. I just thought I would throw my hat in, before we got too far along. I know I'm fairly infantile when it comes to understanding the intricacies of 'politics' and I appreciate in advance your undersdtanding, tolerance and compassionate guidance.






posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Just another means of dividing the 'people' into units of control for the benefit of a few.

What matters is who is to count the ballets and record the results.

Diebold? Prime example. Has anyone seen the source code?
I didn't think so.

Some say that most people are ill equipped or uneducated to make proper decisions as to who to vote for and why.

Most are not aware of the 'real' news and therefor choose the A or B candidate when all along A and B belonged to C. Some know what C stands for while others await the 'official' results.

The people should be able to vote for the candidate who makes the most 'sense' for one's jurisdiction. The representative in question should be held accountable for the results.

Campaign finance reform is a necessity, not an option.
Money and undo influence goes much further than the public is aware.
Both parties suffer the consequences in due time.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Perseus Apex
Just another means of dividing the 'people' into units of control for the benefit of a few.

Campaign finance reform is a necessity, not an option.
Money and undo influence goes much further than the public is aware.
Both parties suffer the consequences in due time.



The problem is that every time they reform campaign financing they act like they intend to make it harder for incumbents to get financing but they truly make it harder. Just look at McCain-Finegold. They made it extremely difficult for challengers to challenge! That is horrible!

In the 1960's I think it was, reform was done that limited the amount of money one can get from a single source. This sounds like a great idea, but in reality it means that a good candidate that may know a few people with money cannot truly have a chance b/c now those few people can only offer very little toward achieving the kind of money that is really required. Allen Boyd is a horrible congressman in District 2 of Florida who raises about 1.5 million dollars every election. However, because he has so many backers it is impossible for a seriously good candidate to get any funding in this district(As it seems he is entrenched with a 2/1 ratio of dems to reps).

I think we need reform, but I think it's unlikely to occur in a way that doesn't benefit the incumbents in a much greater way than the challengers.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join