Liberalism vs. Conservatism

My view on the differences betwixt the two.

from JoeUser Forums

Ever see The Odd Couple? That's what I think of when I think of the battle between liberals and conservatives. Both live together in the same country but with very different beliefs. After years of experiencing life on both sides of the fence, as well as observing my peers, I think I have found the basic differences of each group. Although my views aren't completely objective, I do think that they are accurate.

1. Government Intervention
Conservative View: Pessimistic. Conservatives think government should stick to its basic purposes.
Liberal View: Optimistic. Liberals think the government should play a more active role in people's lives.

2. Law Enforcement
Conservative View: Optimistic. Conservatives beileve a strong police force and military is necessary for security.
Liberal View: Pessimistic. Liberals believe the police and military abuse their power.

3. Majority Rule
Conservative View: Optimistic. Conservatives believe that the main power of government should be in the people.
Liberal View: Pessimistic. Liberals believe that government for those deemed fit to govern.

4. Favorite Branch
Conservative View: Legistlative Branch. Conservatives prefer to work through the legislative branch, which represents the people of the United States.
Liberal View: Judicial Branch. Liberals prefer to work through the judicial branch, the least democratic branch in the American government.

5. Religion
Conservative View: Pro-Christian. Conservatives support the views of Christian more than they do of other beliefs because the majority of Americans are Christian.
Liberal View: Anti-Christian. Liberals support the views of beliefs other than Christianity because they are in the minority.

6. Class
Conservative View: Rich. Conservatives support the upper classes of society because they are the ones who keep the government productive and wealthy.
Liberal View: Poor. Liberals support the lower classes of society for they are the ones who produce the ideas of the upper class.

7. Work Ethic
Conservative View: Strong. Conservatives believe that working hard leads to a successful life.
Liberal View: Weak. Liberals believe that luck, not hard work, determines who is successful and who isn't.

8. Social Welfare
Conservative View: Conservatives believe that people reap what they sow.
Liberal View: Liberals believe that it is the duty of the wealthy to aid the less wealthy.

9. Censorship
Conservative View: Conservatives believe censorship should regulate sex and violence.
Liberal View: Liberals believe censorship should regulate beliefs they feel are hateful.

10. International Affairs
Conservative View: Conservatives believe that America knows what's good for America.
Liberal View: Liberals believe that the interests of other countries come before America's.

11. Threats
Conservative View: War. Conservatives believe that war is necessary to combat threats.
Liberal View: Appeasement. Liberals believe that negotiating with enemies will end any threat.

12. Crime
Conservative View: Punishment. Conservatives believe that criminals should be punished for their crimes with incarceration.
Liberal View: Rehabilitation. Liberals believe that criminals should be rehabilitated for their crimes so that they can return to society.

I think I've accurately described each group, but there are always exceptions. It also might seem biased, but some of that might be because of how I describe certain beliefs as opposed to how they are often described by their own supporters.

politics
18,715 views 43 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Outstanding! While I do't agree with it totally, I think you have done a fair job of describing the two positions in a nutshell.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think this is accurate at all. It offers gross simplifications of the positions held by each side, but especially the liberal side. The simplifications are 'useful' for cartoonists, radio hosts, or people who'd rather be, well, simple. And your sympathies to the conservative side are quite apparent by virtue of how you set up each issue.

Government Market Intervention
Conservative/Libertarian: Free Market, Less Intervention, therefore pro-business. The free market system is good for everyone.
Liberal: Advocates social welfare and middle class, More Intervention to those ends to limit power of economic sectors

Law Enforcement
Conservative: Strong law enforcement is neccesary for security and desirable to maintaining order
Liberal/Libertarian: Strong law enforcement is neccessary for security, but must be regulated and limited

Majority Rule
The differences here are too complex to get into, and it obviously depends upon the characteristics of the majority and the interested parties. In all cases, however, the three-branch republican government limits and regulates the power of the majority to prevent 'tyranny of the majority', and this is good for both parties and national security.

Favorite Branch:
Conservative: Whatever branch the conservative parties hold, currently executive and legislative
Liberal: Whatever branch the liberal parties hold, currently NONE, therefore, the courts and constitution to prevent abuses
Libertarian: They all suck

Religion:
Conservative: Advocates strong religious presence in society, and frequently makes decisions based on religious convictions. May be intolerant of those who do not share views and commitment. Constitution should not take precede the demands of the majority.
Liberal/Libertarian: Views religion with skepticism and fear. May be intolerant of fundamentalist and orthodox sects. Prefers secular rational humanism in decision making. As with free market and law enforcement, limitation and regulation are good. Constitution provides ample means of limitation.

Class:
Conservative/Libertarian: Advocate 'free classes' as a result of free market and other determinants. It is not the government's position to influence class makeup of society.
Liberal: Advocate strong middle class as essential to democracy, and believe that government should limit and regulate free markets, law enforcement, and religion, while providing beneficial programs, to reinforce its strength as the dominant class.

Work Ethic:
Conservative/Libertarian: A strong work ethic is very important, and work ethic might have something to do with politics.
Liberal: What? Work ethic? huh? A strong one is very important, but it alone does not benefit the middle class. Witness laborers and serfs: Strong work ethic, no rights, no democracy.

Social Welfare:
Conservative/Libertarian: Opposed, it is the individual's responsibility to take care of himself, and others should not be forced to pay for parasitic underclasses.
Liberal: It is the individual's responsibility to take care of himself, but the government should offer programs and assistance to ensure for a healthy society, because free markets are inherently destructive and class polarizing.

Censorship:
Conservative: Censorship may be used by government to to protect social norms and values. Government should regulate the exchange of ideas.
Liberal/Libertarian: Censorship by the government is wrong as a matter of principle. Free exchange of ideas is essential to democracy, and government power must be limited.

International Affairs:
Neo-Conservative: America must act as the sole superpower in the world, and not let international relations spoil her ambitions and security 'needs'.
Populist-Conservative: America is not acting out of ambition, but out of defense, and must not let internation relations spoil her right to defend herself.
Paleo-Conservative/Libertarian: Isolationist - America must remain a strong, self-contained republic, not an empire.
Liberal: Cooperation and leadership with allies and international unions benefits global security, and therefore the security of America. America must act unilaterally only in cases of dire emergency.

Threats (terrorism?)
Neo-Conservatism: Terrorism is not a great threat to the greatest military in the world, only an excuse to act and a mild hindrance domestically.
Populist-Conservative: Terrorism is a grave domestic threat, and must be defeated through conventional combat and invasion. The government can be trusted to do what is right about terrorism, even if it lies and doesn't really care about it.
Liberal: Terrorism is a grave international threat, and must be defeated through international cooperation, law enforcement, and military.

Crime
Really no different from law enforcement - Liberals are more likely to empathize with perpetrators, and they are skeptical of law enforcement power.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
With respect to Super and Brad, I think it takes both sides and paints them as absolutes. I think it's also tinted by conservative lenses. I'm not saying that Super is completely wrong, just that as Super says "how I [super] describe certain beliefs as opposed to how they are often described by their own supporters." I agree with Saint on this one.

Unfortunately this is just another attempt to say that conservatives and liverals are absolutely incompatible because of their core beliefs.

Cheers
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gee Super and Brad, it is really nice of you to think that your reductionist account liberalism and your blinkered account of conservatism is fair and balanced.
Saint has got it right.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

SB's is tilted a bit towards the right and Saint's is tilted towards a bit towards the left. If SB's is simplistic, Saint's demonizes conservatives while giving liberals every benefit of the doubt.

Example:

Conservative: Censorship may be used by government to to protect social norms and values. Government should regulate the exchange of ideas.
Liberal/Libertarian: Censorship by the government is wrong as a matter of principle. Free exchange of ideas is essential to democracy, and government power must be limited.

Apparently Saint hasn't been on a college campus lately if he thinks the left is always against censorship. It's liberals who propse "hate crimes" and "hate speech" laws.

But there is enough truth in both that they're still usefuil.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I did want it to be simplistic, and not too biased although some words might not be the best words to use, such as appeasement (although I'm sure using war to describe the conservative way of dealing with threats isn't much better). I do agree with Saint Ying's points on Market Intervention and Class though.
I also don't want it to look as though liberals and conservatives are incompatible because of their core beliefs, because I feel that the opposing views help keep both sides on their toes and away from too much corruption.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I love how Saint Ying states the "Liberal" idea of strong regulation, limitation, etc., and then looks suspiciously at all the branches of government that would enforce these limitations, like law enforcement. Every other point juxtaposes the previous one.

"Liberal" social engineering relies upon authoritarianism to prevent people behaving naturally, and then rebels against authority. I also love the line: "because free markets are inherently destructive and class polarizing". Like there are so many successful alternatives historically to point to. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think I demonized conservatives, but I did frame the anaysis from the more theoretical (and by inference liberal) perspective, which is probably the best I can do:

For example,
'getting involved with people's lives' and 'regulating the expansiveness of the free market/ religion/ executive branch/ middle class' are essentially the same thing, but I prefer the later because I think it is more precise and objective, while I sense a distinct negativity in the former.

And while I don't think the federal government should enforce broad censorship of hate speech (publications, peaceful rallies, internet), I think that perhaps it is in the best interest of institutions and large media outlets to try to prevent violent reactions by watching what they say. But of all the things that I worry about being lost to my ears, provocative hate speech has gotta be at the bottom of my list. Begrudgingly accepting one's right to hate is still accepting one's right to hate, and that's my position.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think liberals hate the executive wing of the government. I think they're just skeptical of any institution that tries to accumulate power for itself. Certainly they want all institutions to do their job well, and not infringe beyond its limits. It goes back to Lockian and Jeffersonian ideals and the foundation of liberalism and the United States, but the powers that we oppose are of course different than they were back then, when the free market was merely a fledgling concept, and religious intolerance was bolstered by the Catholic Church and various governments in Europe. Now I certainly don't know how many liberals would react favorably if the Democratic Party ceased control of the government and created the socialist state of America, but I suspect it wouldn't be that many. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I don't think most liberals feel that any party truly reflects their beliefs, while conservatives seem to have a strong alliance with the Republican party. A strong libertarian streak runs through both liberal and conservative idealogy in America, and one of the common mistakes people make is bluring the line between socialist and liberal thinking. Liberal 'social engineering', or welfarism, does not rely upon authoritarianism, but can function quite well in liberal democracies such as ours, which, getting to your last point, are perfect examples of alternatives to unregulated free trade, the real 'authoritarian' influence in our country today (IMO). Remember, the middle-class of America didn't come about as a result of unfettered free trade, it came about as a result of liberal social programs.




Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well Saint, I may not agree with you but I've rated your thoughts insightful because they definitely make people think.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Remember, the middle-class of America didn't come about as a result of unfettered free trade, it came about as a result of liberal social programs.

That is one of those lines that were it spoken, I wouldn't have believed my ears and asked you to repeat it. The middle class sprung from the grounds of the early renaissance, 600 years ago. It wasn't based upon public education or welfare programs or minimum wage, it appeared when authoritarianism softened and people were able to go to work for themselves. The middle class was alive and well in the colonies long before there was an America. Let's be reasonable, most of the middle class in America now are serfs. They are beholding to their bank, they are beholding to their corporate jobs, and when that fails they are beholding to government help until they find other people to be beholding to.

The "middle class" historically have been independent people, skilled tradesmen and merchants. In socialistic society the middle class are bureaucrats, dependents. The further we go toward making the US a 'liberal democracy' the more we cut out middle class all together. The view I get from Kerry and other 'progressives' is that there should still be two classes, the "haves" and the "have a lots". That is great if the "haves" are skilled, able, independent people. The shortcut now seems to be to make them 'haves' through government mandate, and hope they find a niche in the insect-like system.

If progressivism was honest, they would be much more about returning mankind to an independent state, not making people more dependent by "fostering" them into and artificial middle class. It is like grading on a curve. You aren't making poor people more beneficial to society and themselves, you are just trying to keep them from being poor with whatever band aid you can get the taxpayers to shell out for.

Comfortable, well-dressed, well-fed serfs are still serfs. At least Conservative dogma grants people the respect of being able to fend for themselves. If socialized democracy ensures a "middle class", I'm not sure that is a class I want to be a part of.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The thing is, you can only really get a good idea of both sides by reading both statements.
Cheers
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top


That is one of those lines that were it spoken, I wouldn't have believed my ears and asked you to repeat it. The middle class sprung from the grounds of the early renaissance, 600 years ago. It wasn't based upon public education or welfare programs or minimum wage, it appeared when authoritarianism softened and people were able to go to work for themselves. The middle class was alive and well in the colonies long before there was an America. Let's be reasonable, most of the middle class in America now are serfs. They are beholding to their bank, they are beholding to their corporate jobs, and when that fails they are beholding to government help until they find other people to be beholding to.


When I used the term middle class I wasn't thinking back 600 years, I was thinking about the post-depression era and the liberal policies that flourished from the 30s until the end of the century, and which are now seemingly in danger. Nonetheless, these early examples are consistent with my belief that the dispersion of power into a pluralistic system is conducive to the creation of a middle class. In the case of the rise of the bourgeoise and in the case of the protestant revolution, the institutions that were 'limited' were the authoritarian governments of Europe and the Catholic Church. What is just as clear is that the middle class has not been consistently strong in the United States, and we can look at the period between Lincoln and Roosevelt as evidence of this. What did Roosevelt do? He imposed limitations upon an institution that was too powerful, the free market, described by many as the Church of modernity, whose notions are often deemed sacred and untouchable. Yet individualism is still the core of modern liberalism, and American liberals are both blessed and cursed by the challenge of remaining truthful to 18th century classical liberalism, to John Locke and the founders, and to the constitution.

Of course, I couldn't disagree more about your 'band-aid' analogy. It is a common assumption of economics that capital creates opportunity, and liberals are simply carrying that over to welfarism. In theory, the money we spend on people is an investment, and the yield is the enrichment of the people. In practice, I believe that in Individualist America, if not in collectivist U.S.S.R., the results have been positive, because Americans are mostly proud and hard working, while Russians were not accustomed to individual responsibility, not being aquainted with individualist theory. Those who wish to view Marxism as the natural and immediate leftward progression of Western liberalism do so at their own risk. They are ignoring what I consider key distinctions in the manner in which the different theories treat the rights of the individual. Capital spent on education, community programs, welfare assistance, and healthcare in America has tangible results on the quality of life for Americans and the ability of those individuals to contribute back to their community. A single welfare mother might be a 'parasite', but by providing her with basic needs while maintaining a vibrant free market on which she can take flight by getting a steady job, the government is doing all it can to ensure that neither she nor her child will be a parasite in the future. People fall on hard times, and I believe it is the compassionate and ethical thing to provide some padding so that nobody has to die on the street or work in a sweat shop like they used to in Lowell, Massachusettes.

The "middle class" historically have been independent people, skilled tradesmen and merchants. In socialistic society the middle class are bureaucrats, dependents. The further we go toward making the US a 'liberal democracy' the more we cut out middle class all together. The view I get from Kerry and other 'progressives' is that there should still be two classes, the "haves" and the "have a lots". That is great if the "haves" are skilled, able, independent people. The shortcut now seems to be to make them 'haves' through government mandate, and hope they find a niche in the insect-like system.


First of all, calling John Kerry a progressive is a bit of a stretch. I don't know how he'll run his administration, but I for one am quite skeptical of the democratic party's committment to progressive values. There's a good reason why Noam Chomsky begrudgingly endorsed Kerry, while calling him Bush-lite. Like Clinton, he's campaigning as a liberal, but if his senate record is any indication, big business, not the middle class, is his number one priority, and he'll shift to the center once in power (which beats the far right any day).

Secondly, I don't think liberals are trying to 'engineer' something, I think they are trying to let the people flourish. The free market is its own incentive, and given the opportunity, people will use it to enrich themselves and fend for themselves, just like you proudly profess to do. No American wants to be a dependent 'have a little' when there are so many 'have a lots'. In your unwavering disgust for regulation and limitation, you are using a slew of terms like 'fostering', 'engineering', 'artificial', 'making' and 'bandaging' that makes me question whether your unwavering disgust is actually reserved for people, rather than ideas. I will remind you that, as the 'skilled, able, independent' person you say you are, you do not stand out from anyone, and you are certainly not deserving of special recognition or special treatment by the democracy.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: Super BabyPosted: Sunday, March 21, 2004I did want it to be simplistic, and not too biased although some words might not be the best words to use, such as appeasement (although I'm sure using war to describe the conservative way of dealing with threats isn't much better).

it was a bit biased, you could tell the author was a conservative, but a good idea for an article. i give it **1/2 stars.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Russell, one star too many; Saint, however, deserves ****[I guess you know where I'm coming from--in a "simplistic sort of way.]
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

"What is just as clear is that the middle class has not been consistently strong in the United States, and we can look at the period between Lincoln and Roosevelt as evidence of this."

Again, this depends on a statistical income to determine what is "middle class". If you think that way, there will always be a lower 10 or 20%, so there will always be lower classes. If instead you look at the middle class functionally, based upon their self reliance and comfort level, then you have a good concept of the level of "need". Of course there was poverty between Lincoln and Roosevelt, but when you rate that poverty against what we call poverty now, it is ridiculous. I think a great deal of the pseudo-panic used to influence Americans toward a social system uses income, not real "need", therefore imposing an ever-sliding scale.

"People fall on hard times, and I believe it is the compassionate and ethical thing to provide some padding so that nobody has to die on the street or work in a sweat shop like they used to in Lowell, Massachusettes."

But the padding is already there. Like you say, great steps have already been taken. If there are flaws in the system, they should be addressed to find out why such a small percentage of tax dollars ends up actually in the hands of the poor. Every election we are bombarded with panic that the system isn't broad enough, when in actuality it is rife with abuse and malfeasance. We have no idea how much good could be done. Instead of streamlining it, we just add more hungry bureaucracy.

"Secondly, I don't think liberals are trying to 'engineer' something, I think they are trying to let the people flourish."

I don't buy that. I think that the system as it stands is an industry unto itself. The 'social' system is a huge, self-perpetuating beast. The Federal government here absorbs what, like 50+% of the circulating cash?

"No American wants to be a dependent 'have a little' when there are so many 'have a lots'."

On the contrary, I don't see most middle to lower class Americans sitting around coveting wealth. None that I know do. I think a lot of people realize they could be wealthier if they sacrificed more important things, like home and family, and decide not to. For that reason I don't think handouts do the job. You give what is the most comfortable "poor" in the world the ability to live stable lives like I describe without putting any further effort into it.

"I will remind you that, as the 'skilled, able, independent' person you say you are, you do not stand out from anyone, and you are certainly not deserving of special recognition or special treatment by the democracy."

Nope, nor do I profess to be. I think conservative proponents of the free market spend a lot more time praising the average human being, respecting their abilities, instead of pretending that the poor are less evolved people who need to be taught by progressives how to think, work, and live.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #15 By: stevendedalus - 3/22/2004 2:37:53 AM
Russell, one star too many; Saint, however, deserves ****[I guess you know where I'm coming from--in a "simplistic sort of way.]


I've posted here for merely a few hours, and you're already telling me I deserve s**t! How rude.

Where is this rating function? I'm clueless.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
if i follow your way of thinking , then im mostly conservative. its kinda boiring though if we put everything in the extremes. Why should everything be black or white. it really sucks since im sort of a gray kinda guy.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
For instance, I'm a "conservative" according to your scale on Wars, but liberal on most everything else.

Well, I guess that's mostly true. We should go back to the French system where the Majority are conservatives and the minority are liberals.

Cheers
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saint I think the problem with your thinking is that, well.....its flawed. While it's great to think that all Americans would work hard if given the opportunity, we have to look at reality. I'm all for giving aid to those who need it, and those who actually use it well. Unfortunately, just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean that everyone will use it. A large number of people become welfare dependant. They would much rather take the freebies that are given to them rather than work for their money. To enlarge the system just makes the problem worse.
If we look at countries that have more social programs than we do, we can get a clearer picture. Waiting lists for medical procedures in the countries that have national healthcare are very long. The doctors there don't have the same incentives as in the US. They get the money no matter what, so they do the bare minimum and no more.
Almost everyone is like this though. Why work hard when you don't have to? If I get paid the same no matter how much work I do, and the government gives me job security, am I going to work to my full potential? It really is sad, but we have to admit that the only reason we prosper is because of selfishness. We work harder because it means we get more....we don't work harder to benefit society. Work ethic doesn't develop or stick unless you are recieving benefits from your hard work. If you look at the children of rich people, they get everything they want and never have to work for it.
I guess what I'm saying is, as a person who believes himself to stand very close to the center (but just an inch or so to the right), is that government support is great when it helps people to get off the ground, or when it provides basic needs to society. Unfortunately it gets out of control and allows people to leech off of the system and begin to bring it down.

Now, moving back to the topic of the thread, the issue with the classifications is that very few people are totally conservative or liberal. I had something else to put here, but its gone.......in conclusion, good points everyone!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are humans inherently good or inherently evil?

I believe we're inherently evil.
Am I oversimplifying when argue that basically conservatives hold with the pessimistic view and liberals with the optimistic? That "what's in it for me" has to be the primary motivator? "The only way to legislate morality in this country is to make it less expensive." -- I hate when I can't name a movie and character, but it's a great thought.

Some may argue that by selling the general public the warm-fuzzies about humans being inherently good, a party can buy votes and then do what they want. Its all about the pursuit of power after all, right? (e.g. "what's in it for me?") I'm not laying a blanket down here, I'm just throwing some conversation out there. People like warm-fuzzies and optimism and vote for 'em. People vote for entitlements because of the "what's in it for me" philosophy. It all adds up to power.

Can one not argue that power, not beliefs, is the generator for the American (and ALL) political machines?

I vote we have term limits.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are humans inherently good or inherently evil?

I believe we're inherently evil.
Am I oversimplifying when argue that basically conservatives hold with the pessimistic view and liberals with the optimistic? That "what's in it for me" has to be the primary motivator? "The only way to legislate morality in this country is to make it less expensive." -- I hate when I can't name a movie and character, but it's a great thought.

Some may argue that by selling the general public the warm-fuzzies about humans being inherently good, a party can buy votes and then do what they want. Its all about the pursuit of power after all, right? (e.g. "what's in it for me?") I'm not laying a blanket down here, I'm just throwing some conversation out there. People like warm-fuzzies and optimism and vote for 'em. People vote for entitlements because of the "what's in it for me" philosophy. It all adds up to power.

Can one not argue that power, not beliefs, is the generator for the American (and ALL) political machines?

I vote we have term limits.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe that the desire for power is the driving force behind political machines regardless of size. And this could be a good thing. The question then comes to us, what is the reason the party wants power. There are some who want to acquire power to better the lives of those around them and this group believes it has the right way to go about it. And there are those who accumulate power to extend their influence over people for the groups benefit.
The accumulation of power, driven by beliefs is not the problem. The problem is what to do with the power once acquired.

IG