Liberal/Conservative - what's the difference?
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
First of all for all the readers out there who somehow haven't chanced upon this fact, I'm not an American. I'm not even a Texan. I'm not going to be so condescending as to say that I'm from the proud country of Not America (anyone who doesn't understand what that means should stop reading here; I will continue to use words of three syllables or more, and frankly I doubt you should contribute even if you agree with me). I'm an Australian, and therefore in my country we don't speak in terms of liberals and conservatives.
The local conservative party (insomuch as we have one) is called the Liberal Party, and currently holds both houses of parliament, thus allowing it to act entirely according to whim. In ideology it's perhaps closest to the American Democratic party. By this I mean that it pursues an aggressive foreign policy largely based on creating alliances and creating new diplomatic and trade links in order to achieve a neoliberal world order. Unlike any known US party, it's against trade tariffs and barriers, and has unsuccessfully lobbied against them for years.
It supports the War on Terror and will go 'all the way with GWB" (pronounce GWB the Indonesian way and you'll get the rhyming deal; the phrase was last used with LBJ, so it's a little dated).
The main opposition party is the Labor Party. They do not hold power in any house of parliament, but do control interests in every single state and territory. In ideology they are perhaps closest to the American Democratic Party, although from recent behaviour they have a certain spineless appeasement tinge which is rather embarrassing. Last time they were in power they pursued an aggressive foreign policy largely based on creating alliances and creating new diplomatic and trade links in order to achieve a neoliberal world order. Unlike any known US party, they are against trade tariffs and barriers, and have unsuccessfully lobbied against them for years.
They support the War on Terror but not how it's fought. They will still, however, do whatever is asked of them by the Liberals or the US.
Domestically Labor tends to be decidedly communist by American standards, and the Liberals merely dangerously Socialist (although they have been steadily liberalising (ie removing) most social welfare programs, which from a liberal perspective can only be commended). Both have indulged in privatisation in the past, with the predictable damage to utility efficiency and availability.
Now what I don't understand is this. What are the real differences between a conservative and a liberal? I've watched these pages for over a year now, and still don't see this difference. There seems to be a lot of socialists on these pages - it's a common tendency I think, particularly amongst those labelled liberals. And there seems to be a fair few budding dictators as well, both left-wing (Stalin-esque) and right-wing (Saddam-ahoy!). There are some very public libertarians - Gid in particular always makes a good argument for his views, even if I consider them frightening.
But where are these conservatives and liberals? The ones most commonly labelled conservatives seem to be liberals; they like neoliberal policies, or support neoimperial foreign policies. Some of course are great traditionalists - a big shout out to the religious right, who can always be relied on for an intriguing approach to a problem I'd probably consider solved. But at the same stroke they often have very little respect for the maintenance of ancient institutions, or the maintenance of ancient standards or laws. In fact some times these conservatives even seek to have new laws put into place!
So naturally I can't reconcile that with conservatism, that old and most reputable of viewpoints. Most of them are little more than neoliberal radicals seeking to avoid the stigma of their heritage.
Hmmm, perhaps that's it. Maybe my foreignness prevents me from understanding the political spectrum from the American perspective.
Is it simply that what I would consider a socialist is an American liberal, and what I would consider a liberal is an American conservative? An anarchist an American libertarian? A socialist an American Red Commie Bastard? An American radical a fighter for the 70s and an American conservative the equivalent of an Australian radical?
Or is there some horrible flaw in my logic that drink and youth have clouded?
How do you reconcile politics with perspective?"
The local conservative party (insomuch as we have one) is called the Liberal Party, and currently holds both houses of parliament, thus allowing it to act entirely according to whim. In ideology it's perhaps closest to the American Democratic party. By this I mean that it pursues an aggressive foreign policy largely based on creating alliances and creating new diplomatic and trade links in order to achieve a neoliberal world order. Unlike any known US party, it's against trade tariffs and barriers, and has unsuccessfully lobbied against them for years.
It supports the War on Terror and will go 'all the way with GWB" (pronounce GWB the Indonesian way and you'll get the rhyming deal; the phrase was last used with LBJ, so it's a little dated).
The main opposition party is the Labor Party. They do not hold power in any house of parliament, but do control interests in every single state and territory. In ideology they are perhaps closest to the American Democratic Party, although from recent behaviour they have a certain spineless appeasement tinge which is rather embarrassing. Last time they were in power they pursued an aggressive foreign policy largely based on creating alliances and creating new diplomatic and trade links in order to achieve a neoliberal world order. Unlike any known US party, they are against trade tariffs and barriers, and have unsuccessfully lobbied against them for years.
They support the War on Terror but not how it's fought. They will still, however, do whatever is asked of them by the Liberals or the US.
Domestically Labor tends to be decidedly communist by American standards, and the Liberals merely dangerously Socialist (although they have been steadily liberalising (ie removing) most social welfare programs, which from a liberal perspective can only be commended). Both have indulged in privatisation in the past, with the predictable damage to utility efficiency and availability.
Now what I don't understand is this. What are the real differences between a conservative and a liberal? I've watched these pages for over a year now, and still don't see this difference. There seems to be a lot of socialists on these pages - it's a common tendency I think, particularly amongst those labelled liberals. And there seems to be a fair few budding dictators as well, both left-wing (Stalin-esque) and right-wing (Saddam-ahoy!). There are some very public libertarians - Gid in particular always makes a good argument for his views, even if I consider them frightening.
But where are these conservatives and liberals? The ones most commonly labelled conservatives seem to be liberals; they like neoliberal policies, or support neoimperial foreign policies. Some of course are great traditionalists - a big shout out to the religious right, who can always be relied on for an intriguing approach to a problem I'd probably consider solved. But at the same stroke they often have very little respect for the maintenance of ancient institutions, or the maintenance of ancient standards or laws. In fact some times these conservatives even seek to have new laws put into place!
So naturally I can't reconcile that with conservatism, that old and most reputable of viewpoints. Most of them are little more than neoliberal radicals seeking to avoid the stigma of their heritage.
Hmmm, perhaps that's it. Maybe my foreignness prevents me from understanding the political spectrum from the American perspective.
Is it simply that what I would consider a socialist is an American liberal, and what I would consider a liberal is an American conservative? An anarchist an American libertarian? A socialist an American Red Commie Bastard? An American radical a fighter for the 70s and an American conservative the equivalent of an Australian radical?
Or is there some horrible flaw in my logic that drink and youth have clouded?
How do you reconcile politics with perspective?"
