What's a Conservative Ideology and What's a Liberal Ideology?
86
|
INEPTOCRACY 2012 Election Government Definition political CONVENTION T-Shirt
Current Bid: $16.95
|
|
INEPTOCRACY 2012 Election Government Definition political CONVENTION T-Shirt
Current Bid: $16.95
|
|
|
INEPTOCRACY 2012 Election Government Definition political CONVENTION T-Shirt
Current Bid: $16.95
|
|
INEPTOCRACY 2012 Election Government Definition political CONVENTION T-Shirt
Current Bid: $16.95
|
Introduction
I used to carpool with an old, blind professor to the small college I attended and he use to tell me, paraphrasing Gore Vidal, that politics came from two words: poli, meaning many, and tics, meaning blood sucking vermin. Unfortunately, his somewhat suspect etymology, while proving technically untenable, has turned out to be largely correct in principle.
In American politics, where power has become everything, ideology has become a bastard step-child. American politicians think more about how they can fool the masses or get around popular democracy to further their ends than they do about what they truly believe in, if they actually believe in anything?
Of course, it is not my intent to sweep every single politician under the bus with a broad brush, so for this hub it must be understood that I am speaking in general terms.
Two Major Ideologies: Liberal and Conservative
There are two major ideologies in American politics. Understanding these helps us understand each other politically and enables us to make sense of what at times seems senseless. These ideologies are labeled conservative and liberal. Although these terms have changed definitions over the years, I will use them as they are currently defined.
If you took a strip of paper that was blue on one end and gradually changed colors until it was red at the other end, you would end up with a spectrum of colors. At some point toward the center of the strip you could get into a few arguments as to whether the color was red, purple, or blue. It is that way with the liberal and conservative ideologies, so I will be concentrating on the ends of the strip, so to speak, and not the middle.
Conservative Vs. Liberal
At the core of it, Conservatives base there ideology on what they see as reason and logic and it is individualistic by nature, whereas a liberal's ideology is based on emotion and ideals and is collective by nature. A liberal is interested in curing society's ills by social engineering. A conservative is interested in curing society's ills by individuals exercising their own choices to better themselves. Because of this, conservatives view centralized power with deep suspicion. Liberals on the other hand see centralized power as an opportunity to affect great change for good.
The Role of Government
Because of the fundamental differences in the way conservatives and liberals approach the solutions to society's challenges, it should come as no surprise that they have radically different views on the role of government.
The Liberal View
A liberal wants the government deeply involved in our lives. It is often seen as a parent to us all—or the big tent. They believe that the government can force society to confront its ills and legislate and enforce the cures. A liberal point of view diminishes the individual's responsibility and believes people are victims or victimizers. This point of view does not see individuals as having power to rise above their circumstances in large numbers and therefore a savior must be found to "level the playing field."
They point to the example of the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Without government intervention, they argue, the rights of minorities would never have been acknowledged nor would there be equal rights for all. In fact the civil rights movement is the basis of the modern liberal's political ideology, and proof that it is essentially correct.
This conviction motivates them to use all means available to impose their vision of goodness on the masses. If they can't get the populous to support their agenda then they will get the courts to legislate it. This is because they firmly believe that their agenda is for the greater good of society.
Liberalism is naturally sympathetic with socialism and suspicious of individualism and even though it shares the same long-term goals as conservatism it's approach, as you can see, is radically different.
 | Amazon Price: $2.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $3.99 List Price: $20.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $2.88 List Price: $15.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $12.95 |
The Conservative View
Even though the conservatives share with liberals the desire for a better society, they differ sharply in what role the government should play. In a nut shell, conservatives view the role of government as "the less the better." Since they see the combined strength and sufficiency of the individual as the only honest cure for society they believe that the role of government should be restricted to functions that support and protect individual liberty. They are very suspicious of government interference in individual rights, and they do not see differences in socioeconomic groups as a bad thing since, in their view, it is every individual's right to change those circumstances by choice and action.
They view the government's attempts at redistribution of wealth through its tax codes, its interference in commerce by regulations, and its welfare entitlements as enabling individuals to shirk responsibility for their own lives and rely on the government to take care of them. They reason that the more the government takes responsibility for his or her well being away from the individual, the weaker and more dependent society will become.
| Amazon Price: $2.99 |
| Amazon Price: $3.99 List Price: $20.00 |
| Amazon Price: $2.88 List Price: $15.99 |
| Amazon Price: $12.95 |
Who's right?
At this point in American politics the two ideologies have taken a back seat to power, but if they were brought to bear on our government which would be the best: Socialist Democracy, or an independent go-it-alone capitalist democracy? I would submit to you that the extremes of both ideologies are dangerous and would deepen problems in American society and that one, tempered with the other, might be the best ideology of all.
For example: if we have a struggling class in America, we could provided training opportunities for people who wanted to succeed and would put forth efforts on their own behalf instead of entitlement programs that accomplish nothing and consume copious amounts of money? Along with such programs would also come the responsibility for the recipients to put forth efforts on behalf of their own welfare.
We need to have a heart that includes tough love and foresight, one that looks at America's opportunities and does not retreat into a defensive posture from the world around it. One that can realize the true nature of the threats against America and America's way of life. Not a vision that feels good at the thought of America sinking down to the level of the third world, but instead one that forges on a head and shows the way for the third world to follow.
America must continue to provide unparalleled opportunities, but not bend to whiners and self proclaimed victims who want to short-cut the system and reap benefits they never earned. We must in sympathy try to teach fishing, quit giving fish and realize that poverty is not always the rich or the government's fault. But we must not march on, leaving people behind who, with a little instruction and help, can become productive and successful. In doing this we must also have the heart firm enough to leave those behind who refuse all help and demand instead to be fed from the public coffer's without a contribution of their own.
We must leave classism, racism, and bigotry behind, regardless if it is the old-school-hard-hearted variety wacky right, or the soft feel-good, guilt-washing, variety of the wacky left. No class of Americans should be punished or be held back based on the color of their skin in order to "even the score." We need to let go of power and take hold of responsibility; quit giving the media oracle status, and get the job done.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (13)
- Funny (2)
- Awesome
- Beautiful
- Interesting (3)
CommentsLoading...
Fine reading. I agree that there needs to be a balance, but I guess I lean more toward the right. There is nothing so uplifting as knowing you've accomplished something on your own, by your own steam. It gives a person a tremendous boost in confidence knowing that they can take care of them self, which then engenders the desire to keep on doing so.
I have worked with the homeless. I saw first-hand what kind of people are homeless and I can loosely put them into three broad catagories-
1- the guy that lost his job and will do anything to work his way back up. This guy only takes a handout because he has no choice. He can't get work and hold a job if he has no place to sleep - but he resents the hell out of the fact that he has to do so at all and works like the dickens to "pay his own way".
2- the guy who is emotionally shattered. Society, events, PTSD, whatever, has broken this guy and no matter how hard he tries he can't seem to make a go of it. This guy needs our compassion and aid the most and, he deserves it. A civilized society does not throw it's weakest members onto the trash heap.
3- abusers of the system. They can get a handout and they'll take that handout for as long as they can get it. Work? Are you kidding? Why work when they can get all this stuff for free?
I do not address here why people have become homeless. There are as many reasons as there are homeless. But I would say that group #2 is the biggest group. And so yes, I believe that they should be helped but not necessarily by the government. These people were MOSTLY helped by religious groups in the area that believed in helping their fellow man.
So to get back to the main point, no, I do not believe that the government should be in the business of social programs. I have found, from my own experience, that more people are helped and treated with compassion when helped by private organizations and individuals. When the government did get involved, it was callous, faceless and brazenly self-serving - as in "the more homeless we can "claim" we've "helped" the bigger our subsidy will be!"
Very well-written article! It clearly outlines the ideologies, and I have to say that you are quite right, although I also have to say that I would side on the "wacky" right. Madame X is right in the fact that the religious groups have the responsibility for the homeless, not the government.
Nice descriptions of the polar opposites. I agree that most politicians are true to no ideal these days, beyond grabbing and hanging onto power, or what passes for power, since the real power is in global corporatism, not government.
Good Hub and more factually correct than incorrect. The only thing I see that I would disagree with is your wording of "Capitalist democracy" The US is a Representative Republic not democracy. If I missed the point please correct me. I enjoyed the article.
You are correct. I used the term incorrectly because it is what most people understand. Like the term liberal and conservative. They are not used correctly by the media, so if I use it as they do it keeps people from being confused. Today's liberals are really institutional conservatives.
Thanks for your comments.
CW
Great Hub - perfect for anyone wondering what the differences are between conservatives and liberals.
Thanks Unfortunately there are more people in America today who do not want to know the difference but should.
Ironic that in the late 1800's the above defined roles of the parties were reversed. (I know, that's neither here nor there.)
I would submit another class, of which I was a member (to my shame) when I was younger, and which is a majority. I just didn't care as long as they left me the hell alone. I didn't understand the differences between liberals and conservatives, didn't care, and thought that my one little voice didn't amount to much.
I agree with your statement that modern politicians are only after the power. The only politicians I've met who actually do give a damn about the people they want to represent are out of a job. Ironically, We the People allowed this to come about. The very system only encourages those of less than noble ideas to run for office.
Think about it this way. It takes several million dollars to get elected to any federal office. To get that money, a politician has to fundraiser. The people who have the money to give also want assurances that the person taking the money will take their view. So, said politician has to make promises.
Even if the politician doesn't compromise, he'she will quickly find out that in order to keep their elected seat, they have to start fund-raising for the next election cycle immediately. This process tends to corrupt even the most moral and trustworthy of politicians. (Unless your family made huge fortunes running alcohol during prohibition, had one member assasinated, and yet another kill a woman by driving off a bridge. Then you become canonized.)
You are correct. It all comes back to we the people. And it is only us who can save us. As for the I-Don't-Care group they do not vote anyway. Right now clowns run the show in DC along with the News Media because we are to inept to think for ourselves. Liberalism thrives on ignorance and poverty and has a vested interest in keeping both alive and well.
If either you or I were a CEO of a company and we ran it like our government runs this country we'd be thrown in jail. Right now our current government is interested in making this nation a two class nation: The ruling class and the dependent class.
God help us do the right thing.
Think back to the GOALS 2000 Act, sponsored by Hillary Clinton for the most part. It took a page right out socialist/totalitarian papers - complete government take-over of the schools. The No Child Left Behind Act only enforces it.
I've read the constitution more times that I care to admit. Nowhere in Article 1 section 8 is there an enumerated power which gives the government control of schools or curriculum. Someone could argue the "necessary and proper" clause, but they obviously have never read the rest of that line. "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." What this means is that they can only make laws which are necessary and proper in executing the 17 enumerated powers given to the congress by the constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments grant ALL other powers to the people and the states.
I wish other people would at least read the document.
I think you have it correct. An uneducated populace makes for a poor government of we the people.
Very nicely done. I think you have identified correctly what most understand as the polar opposites of the political ideologies of today. The parties are no longer relevant it is only the underlying claim to right and political correctness.
As neither a liberal nor a conservative but rather a social progressive and a Constitutional purist with a strong leaning toward smaller government; I can only say that we have, that is we the people, have failed in our duty. We have allowed our government to grow out of control. We have sold our greatness to the lowest bidder in favor of deregulation, Wall Street, and CEO bonus's.
Ah well, maybe there will be a time soon I hope, that we the people well stand up and truly hold the government and our elected officials accountable. When we stop and consider the slogans we shout and the demands we make. When we vote for the candidate with ethics, standards, and ideas rather than name recognition. Maybe it will happen before it is too late.
I could not agree more. If we as Americans have differences let them be honestly and openly discussed and not traded in the back rooms of political parties bent on spinning them for their own power profits.
It is even our own greed that drove wall street. We shouldn't look to our government to regulate wall street, we should look to ourselves!
(Tongue in cheek) But you don't understand, Mr. Walker... trying to understand or be involved in politics isn't any FUN!! I don't care that I have a civic responsibility because it belongs to me and was handed down my ancestors. Hell, the last thing I want to do is get stuck on a jury, that's why I didn't register to vote. Besides, I don't like any of the candidates I have to choose from, and my vote doesn't REALLY count anyway cuz of the Electoral College and look at the fiasco that was made of the election in 2000.
Besides, they hold all this political crap when I'm either busy hangin' with my homeboys or watchin' Survivor on tv. I aint got time to be bothered by all that nonsense 'bout Socialism, Communism, Fascism or religion, aint none of that gonna pass anyway, this is America, fool. The Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free, you know, red, white, and blue, mom, baseball and apple pie.
Seriously, the lesson for today is that while Greatness may be achieved through great acts, Greatness is maintained by by simple acts.
America is THE world leader. The rest of the world looks to us for direction. They come to America for opportunity. They come to America for a better life. They come to America for education or for medical procedures.
America is great because Americans get involved. How much greater would America be if ALL Americans got involved?
Good Hub well written with both description being really very acturate. Iknow about the extremes I was at one time a stright ticket hard line Republican. Ronald Regan was a friend, a mentor and then my dream president. After Ronald Regan left office and was ill, the party became ill too. The neo-conservatives became very close to neo nazi's. They lost me The far right scared the hell out of me.
The far left scares me for the same reason. I'm a middle of the road kind of guy now and take my half out of the center.
Gryffon, you message is right on point. There is one amendment I would add to it though: Don't vote if you have not educated yourself to the issues and candidates. Don't vote because someone from the DNC or RNC has picked you up in a van and promised you smokes.
Excellent article thanks Christian. I agree that the dangers to our democratic societies (I live in Australia) exist at both extremes of the political spectrum. Thanks for succinctly summarising the agenda.
Like the comment btw: "Don't vote because someone from the DNC or RNC has picked you up in a van and promised you smokes."
I think your opinion of the parties leans a little too much to the conservative side giving it a little too much lean to the right. Librals are more concerned with equality because wealth gives some more power. If wealth becomes the new American ideal, then we lose other values.
The two party system doesn't represent the incredible shrinking middle class of this country.
It is the middle class that made the United States of America different and better than the rest of the world.
A vote for Row A or Row B is a vote against the middle class.
I liked your hub. However I just wanted a little clarification on this point: 'we must also have the heart firm enough to leave those behind who refuse all help.' Did you mean we as individuals must withdraw our sympathy and personal aid or that literally the government must withdraw all resources?
I definitely agree with the first interpretation: withdrawing individual compassion, resources, time and general help. Regarding the second... do you not think that this would cause greater problems for the rest of society? Are we as a group not shirking our responsibility if we literally 'leave those behind who refuse all help?' Leaving us wide open to consequences?
dfager,
The liberal's dream of equality comes by brute force of big government. Liberalism leads to a "benevolent" Aristocracy which only lends liberty to its approved underlings. It always takes, by force, from the producers and gives to the consumers who do not produce. The inevitable consequence is ruin. One only needs to read history and observe nature to see how wrong headed this is.
mrteacher,
Spending our resources on those who refuse to be helped denies those very resources to others who would welcome and benefit from those resources.
Is it not a more serious consequence to our nation to deny resources to people who would benefit greatly from them in order for us to have pearls to cast?
The Irony of giving government assistance like housing to people in need because some private bank made a bad loan ,and probably knew it is, there are private corporations that are willing to provide those services at an inflated cost.We are told that government workers saleries and benefits are too high,but we don't complain enough about that.The government is not a business and those in government that are in charge are not as willing to layoff or fire someone as easily as they do in a private sector.Corporations are more likely to do that,with the exception of people under contract.Governments always try to increase taxes.But with the state of the economy we have today that's unlikely,and in that case layoffs even in government are possible.But,it seems to take a lot of convincing before the brakes are applied to convince everyone the economy isn't doing well,
Private corporations don't mind getting paid huge sums for doing what the military could do for at a fraction of the cost.Can you spell Haliburton."RIPOFF ARTISTS"and this is supposedly a conservitive backed corporation.I'm sure liberals have their own corporate sweethearts as well.The ones that are more than willing to provide services to the poor at inflated prices too.
If,we really want to help the poor,why do we insist that they lose everything they have in order to get any help.I can understand the conservitives point of view of someone who is well off and doesn't need help.I'm sure there are people who are well off,who don't need help.I don't know how many ,but who ever they are,if,they can live comfortably without needing government assistance,like social security,then as long as that's the case ,why give it to them. If,for some reason they lose the money they have in income,savings etc.and they end up without the ability to provide for themselves,they would still be eligible for social security as the need arises.After all they paid more into the system,probably more than the average person,and they would also get a proportionately larger amount in benefits as well,if they needed them.After all that's what social security was setup for in the first place right.Isn't that a conservitive idea? Liberals might think differently,even rich liberals.It,seems we are only willing to help out the poor if we can make a profit doing it.If,that's the case why not invest in creating jobs.Why,do we need to export jobs,and import so many foreign goods?
Because the rich liberals that import those goods ,make money and the rich conservitives who export jobs can demand lower wages. So they both win.They both make money,but in different ways.Liberals,are liberal as long as they can make money at it,this also helps the conservitives who also make money because of what the liberals have done ,the conservitives can lower wages,because the cost of living,at least when it comes to buying imported clothing,and food,and all those dollar items we sell to people.Too bad we can't say the same for banking,insurance and healthcare.
Wow, I've never read anything more straight to the point and right on with the topic - I've gotta hand it out to yu, Mr. Walker that you did a fine job on this.
The one thing that's good about it, is that in the capital building you always find people trying to sound so smart and such like our saviors when really they are only trying to fool americans by tricking them into their sneaky little traps, and this document my friends, is the exact opposite of what is going on in ObamaWorld, and again, well done.
The thing I would like to make known is that yes, I'm a 14 year old and I'm sick and tired of the president and all of his buddies in D.C. This year in school I have written nothing but stuff from the lies of Global Warming to Socialism and Capitalism, and so on, all in my English Class.
The thing that Mr. Walker has most explicitly shown to us is that there are people in this country that can take the time to write things out without any discrimination, or biased based information, and here Mr. Walker has shown no signs of such things. Well done.
I agree that Liberalism is the way to send this country to hell, literally, because one, THERE IS A BELLIGERENT FOOL IN THE OVAL OFFICE THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER WAR WITH THE AMERICAN WELFARE AS A WHOLE. He has shown countless signs of planning on doing nothing but eventually destroying america. JUST LOOK AT WHAT HE HAS DONE! For example, his tax cut plan to help those of us whom I DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER AMERICANS get 'back on their feet', by giving them one grand worth in tax cuts. AND THE GOV MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THEY ARE THE ONE GIVING THEM THE MONEY, WHEN IT REALLY COMES FROM PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS NATION'S WELFARE!!! IT'S INSULTING!!!
Also, his health care plan, to give health care to those same 45 or so million, LESSENS EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN'S CHANCE OF SURVIVAL, SHOULD THEY CONTRACT CANCER OR DISEASE!!! JUST LOOK AT ENGLAND, AND CANADA!!! THE CONDITIONS THERE WILL BECOME KNOWN HERE TOO. Have fun dieing in the waiting room while waiting for a doctor, america, BECAUSE WE HAVE CHOSEN THIS!IT'S INSULTING!!!
Again, I am sick and tired of this current government, and mark my 14-year-old words; THEY ARE ONLY PLANNING ON DESTROYING THIS NATION SO THEY CAN 'SAVE IT!'Thank you america for thinking before we acted.
I agree on this...your hub is very informative on differentiation of conservative and liberal, I really learned from it.
One, if not the best article of political assimilation that I have read. Aesthetically written and well thought out.
Christian Walker
Well written hub
You wrote
‘’America must continue to provide unparalleled opportunities, but not bend to whiners and self proclaimed victims who want to short-cut the system and reap benefits they never earned
if we have a struggling class in America, we could provided training opportunities for people who wanted to succeed and would put forth efforts on their own behalf instead of entitlement programs that accomplish nothing and consume copious amounts of money? ‘’
A short description of a liberal and a conservative. Let’s just say, they both want to help the poor.
The liberal wants to help the poor with someone else's money
The conservative is willing to help the poor with his own money
Somewhere down the line politicians have forgotten that they have a fiduciary responsibility to spend the taxpayers money in a fair and honest way.
For what it’s worth regarding unauthorized aliens cost to the legal taxpayers.
ILLEGAL ALIENS, how much it is costing the taxpayers over the government's refusal to enforce the immigration laws to the fullest extent of the law
The following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2.$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps,WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3.$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.&nabs;
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt
&n bsp;
6.$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt
7.30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt
8.$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.h
9 $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC RI PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10 The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border. Also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. border.Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht <
12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deporta
13.In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm>
14.'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .
Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.
Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S. CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!
It's all about votes and politics. Washington's silence is deafening about their responsibility's to the rule of law and the US Constitution.
If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, forward it to every legal resident in the country including every elected representative in Washington , D.C. - five times a week for as long as it takes to restore some resemblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof. Stop the insanity now and start working for the benefit of legal citizens.
Oh brother. This article is obviously biased towards the conservative position.
If conservatives value individualism, why do they want to prevent gay couples from sharing the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples, to regulate sexual activity between consenting adults or to deny women the right to reproductive autonomy? Conservatives are only individualists on economic issues, liberals are only collectivists on economic issues.
Mutale,
I think you are confusing a characterization of conservatism with conservatism. Conservatives do not care what people do in there bedroom and very few of them would oppose a civil union that would confer all of the rights of marriage on a gay couple. It is the term marriage that is the sticking point with most of them. As far as I am concerned heterosexuals have already all but destroyed the sanctity of marriage so the gay marriage thing is mostly a visceral reaction.
No conservative wants to regulate sexual activity and to lay that charge against either Conservatives or Liberals is disingenuous at best and purely ignorant at worst.
Liberals are collectivists on social issues also. They boast about there concern for reproductive rights while denying human beings the right to life. Conservatives, on the other hand do not deny reproductive rights for anyone. No conservative would advocate forcing anyone to engage in activities that would lead to pregnancy. That is soley up to the individual to do so.
CW
I had to stop reading because of all the spelling and grammar errors. What a joke.
I guess this crap appeals to low information voters, like teabaggers.
Very funny!
Sorry but the OP is confused and conflicted. The OP cites:
Quote: -- "A liberal wants the government deeply involved in our lives. It is often seen as a parent to us all—or the big tent. They believe that the government can force society to confront its ills and legislate and enforce the cures."
---
Whaaaa???
A liberal wants government deeply involved in our lives? You mean like the way conservatives want to allow authorities to wiretap and search our persons & property without a warrant or any other constitutional requirements? After all it was conservatives who backed Bush's implementation of the patriot act, as well as, ignoring FISA rules on top of it.
Or how about the way conservatives want the government all into our private lives by banning gay couple marriages? Or how about the way conservatives want the government to step in against the rights of workers to organize unions under the rubric of protecting corporations? Or how about the way conservatives want the government to tell you what you can and cannot do to your own body, such as which intoxicant you can and cannot use - even if done in the privacy of your own home? Talk about the ones who “believe that the government can force society to confront its ills and legislate and enforce the cures.” Clearly conservatives are the ones guilty of that.
I could continue, but the point is you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, certainly about your comment with regard to social engineering. Conservatives (not liberals) are the ones big on social engineering.
The OP also cites:
Quote: -- “At the core of it, Conservatives base there ideology on what they see as reason and logic and it is individualistic by nature, whereas a liberal's ideology is based on emotion and ideals and is collective by nature. A liberal is interested in curing society's ills by social engineering. A conservative is interested in curing society's ills by individuals exercising their own choices to better themselves.”
---
If conservatives based THEIR (not there) ideologies on reason and logic, then, they would repudiate supply-side economics (aka Reaganomics / trickle-down) and repudiate deregulation (aka corporate lawlessness). Why? For the same reason we all repudiate communism. Communism is repudiated on the bases of its failure to deliver its promises as compared to capitalism.
However, deregulated capitalism (aka laissez-faire), and, supply-side economics took an American economy where America far out produced the world as compared to today, and where just one income could afford to buy what two, three or more incomes can’t afford to buy today. All because of these conservative economic ideologies we’ve had shoved down our throats for the past forty to fifty years by conservatives who either don’t know what they’re talking about, or, by corporate interests playing on the ignorance of your average conservative.
So if conservatives based their ideologies on reason and logic, then examining history, reason and logic would dictate that capitalism under liberal economic ideologies as being the far superior model and the way to go. America was far better off under the effects of FDR economic principles than any conservative principle, and I do not consider Obama much different than Bush or Reagan because today’s (D) or (R) party is too heavily bribed-off (I mean lobbied) by corporate interests, so there’s too many similarities between the two of them today.
Our past history, plus, what’s currently happening today, and, what happened in the interim make it clear which economic model is best. Plus you can also look at any other country and you’ll see the same trend. A perfect example of how bad of a train-wreck the conservative economic model is, is look at Mexico for example. If conservatives like to use Russia as an example (and correctly so) as an example of why communism is a failure, then why do they flip-flop by ignoring or own history, or ignoring Mexico currently and other examples of deregulated (laissez-faire) and supply-side economics? My answer is because that’s the conservative for you. They listen to hate & fear mongering radio or other media and are not able to cognize reality. Talk about the ones acting emotionally. Just look at how easily conservatives get all emotionally worked up into a frenzy of fear and anger at minorities, immigrants, gays, or whatever other dribble by their talk radio personalities or politicians.
The fact of the matter what history shows is: Conservative ideologies want an economic model which has time and again throughout history ultra concentrated the wealth (exactly like Mexico today). So that tells me they value their economic partisanship over the success of our country and fellow countrymen, or they are just plain ignorant of history.
Also, conservative ideologies want the government to enforce their social engineering ideals onto everyone because they don’t want to live in a society based on individual freedom and equality. Rather, they want a society which lives the way THEY want to live. I re-cite as examples their actions against gay marriages, a woman’s reproductive rights. Also, it was conservatives who in our past banned interracial marriages. Also its conservatives who fight against an individual’s right to chose their intoxicant. Now you can’t get more against the idea of individual freedom then to oppress against what one can and cannot do to their own body.
On that last point many conservatives will come up with the contradicting to their own stated ideas about “individual freedom and responsibility” by saying its necessary to “legislate and enforce the cures” against these substances because of their potential “ills” on society.
I mean I can keep going on and on and on with example after example on how conservatives (albeit maybe meaning well) are confused and conflicted, and void of critical thinking.
Lastly I’d like to respond to an often cited point conservatives like to incorrectly make about principles the United States was founded upon. Contrary to what conservatives think the United States was not founded upon the economic principles they are always pushing for today. Early on the United States and the colonies before it hated corporate sovereignty and the wealth/power concentrating effects of its principles. That is why originally corporations were severely restrained within our new republic. They could only be authorized by an act of legislature in one specific state, and not at the federal level. They could only exist for a single purpose serving the public good and only then for a limited period. State legislatures held the power to revoke corporate charters, and voter referendum could initiate that process. Read John Locke “Two Treatises of Government.” A 1690 publication cited by many early Americans as justification to separate from Great Britain.
John Locke's publication criticizing corporate power played an arguable part in influencing the start of the American war of independence, and the era of individual sovereignty which emerged. Some colonial subjects in America had tired of corporate governance and cited doctor Locke as their legal basis. The American revolution fought to replace British corporate rule with a new republic form of government. Colonial Americans hated corporations, in the sense that they hated the Crown exercising absolute control over chartering them. In another sense, they hated missing a share of the profits. Damn them liberals wanting to "spread the wealth" I mean wanting freedom, true democracy (not corporate interest democracy), and fair compensation for their labor.
I will close by adding this to corroborate the two above paragraphs. The resulting United States constitution made no mention of the word "corporation" whatsoever. Instead, the new United States of America enjoyed a national sovereignty. The system was built on “collections” of individual sovereignty posed directly against governmental tendencies that had become characteristic of corporate sovereignty.
In the preamble of the constitution it is
(Con't)
in the preamble of the constitution it is written: "We the people of the United States, in order to......promote the general welfare..." Now what does promote the general welfare mean? Did they mean for government to "provide for" the general welfare? Or did they just mean something else?
Well, if we look at the first article of the constitution we see: U.S. Constitution Article 1 section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to......."provide for the".....general welfare of the United States.
Also, notice conspicuously its says "We the people" and not we the corporate interest? So the statement to provide for the general welfare means to provide for the general welfare of the people. It does not mean to provide for the general welfare of corporate interests. Ergo, it is one of the duties of Congress (who ultimately are representatives of us the body politic) to provide for the general welfare of the public. THAT is what was established by the founders of our country. It is written right there at the top of our constitution for anybody and everyone to read.
Now if you're the traditionalists you claim to be then stop being so unpatriotic and anti-American and fight the fight that the early Americans you claim to mimicking fought. But you won't will you? Because lets face it, you're too willfully ignorant because of blind Partisanship to realize you're fighting against your own interests and against our country's interests.
Mike Ward,
Thanks grammar and spelling for the critique.
______________________________________
Xicano,
Unfortunately all of the points you make about conservatives interfering in an individuals life miss the target by a long shot. For instance, what you see as interference in a womans reproductive rights is seen by conservatives as protecting the right to life for each person in the United States. At what age may a woman kill her child? What rights should that child have to live.
Obama has continued all of Bush's covert attempts at gather information on terrorists. Even he feels this is important to do to combat terrorists.
Whether it is or not is a different debate but obviously two presidents from each party feel it must continue. I am not ignorant of the potential danger this poses to freedom.
As far as your claim that a conservative economy has been "shoved down" our throats for the past 40 years is baffling to me. I feel that if you spend some time researching capitalism and socialism you will revise your remarks. It has been the unbridled regulations of the government that has driven up prices.
Even a very rudimentary understanding of capitalism and supply and demand would reveal that when you control prices then you have supply problems and visa versa.
The government does have a role to play and that is to ensure that capitalism is prosecuted fairly. It is also arguable that FDR actually exacerbated the nations economic woes with his misguided nanny state policies and that WWII is what kick started the economy.
I would say that whether liberal or conservative our government is not good when it is corrupted by power.
Your attitude in what you write illustrates what I wrote in this hub. You fit a lot of my description of a liberal.
CW
Unfortunately Christian Walker, your attitude in what I write about conservatives fits a lot of my descriptions about conservatives.
I noticed one thing you bring up again is the "fear" rhetoric conservatives always try to use to justify everything they do against not only the framework of the constitution, but, also, to their own stated view points about individualism and responsibility. Conservative politics can almost always be boiled down to fear & hate or lack of historic knowledge.
Also, the last 40 yrs of conservative economics is baffling to you because of your apparent ignorance of just how long conservatives have been tearing down on regulations and pushing supply-side economics. Again, when in history we have a more consumer-side economic model and healthy regulations, we see a broader base of Americans at work in a jobs paying livable wages. And when we have a more supply-side economic model with deregulation we always see a concentration of the wealth with heavy consolidation of businesses resulting in heavy unemployment, lower paying wages and less market competition and more government/corporate cronyism. Exactly what we see in Mexico and exactly the road we see ourselves going down today as a result of this steady eroding of regulations and consumer-sided economics.
To make a comparisons about deregulation being nothing more than about corporate lawlessness. Let me compare it to traffic regulations (I mean laws). How absurd would it be for me to propose deregulating traffic laws? Clearly I hope you have enough wit about you to see what really is being proposed in this example is proposing lawlessness on the highway. Lawlessness is exactly what would happen because if you have any sense at all you'll know you just can't rely upon enough people to act responsibly when there's no laws.
Just as important as the laws which protect us in traffic are the laws which protect us as consumers and as labor. End of discussion as far as I and history are concerned with that point.
You can go on and willfully ignore history and conflict with the principles of the constitution and your own stated position with respect to less government interference in personal lives. I on the other hand will remain on the side of history and the principle of "We The People."
Its been a pleasure Christian Walker, this will be my final post. Thanks for the forum, I appreciate it.
Just want to post some numbers.
INCOME DISTRIBUTION
TOP 1%
1976--8.9%
2007---23.5%
1928---23%
Net worth Forbes 400—2007—1.5 TRILLION
Net worth Poorest 50%-2007---1.6 Trillion
Minimum wage--$7.25 per hour
Ceo Chespeake Energy--$27,034.74 per hour
Average hourly wage inflation adjusted—1972--$20.06
Average hourly wage inflation adjusted----2008--$18.52
“Real” after-tax income growth 1979-2008
Bottom quintile to top—11%-18-21-32-86-112%-(Top 5% 143%—Top 1% 256%)
Change Family Income growth 1947-1979
Bottom quintile to top---+116%-100-111-114-99-86%
1945-1979 was Equitable Distribution
1980-2008 was Third World Distribution
Harvard and Duke Universities made a survey of 5000 people.
They showed the Wealth held by the richest 20% and middle 20% of population in two nations.
One was labeled A one B. 92% chose A.
In A the distribution was 20% had 36% of wealth—middle 20% had 15%--60% had 49%
In B the distribution was 20% had 84% of wealth---middle 20% had 4%----60% had 12%
Which would you choose?
A=Sweden
B=United States
"Conservative politics can almost always be boiled down to fear & hate or lack of historic knowledge."
This is an interesting characterization even though it has little to do with the truth. Liberals hate labels but love to label. I think that as liberals see there power beginning to drain away they are the ones filled with fear. As far as hate goes, that is a human emotion equally portrayed by liberals and conservatives alike. It is a personal failing.
As far as historical knowledge goes it is the liberals who rewrite history in order to support their progressive agenda and justify their dislike for individual freedom and its inevitable results in winners and losers.
It is a pipe dream to believe that the US economy has been under the control of conservative thought. Liberalism has dominated US economics since Woodrow Wilson.
Neither I nor any conservative I know would suggest that the government doesn't have a role to play in the economy but liberals want the government to play big brother and make sure everything is fair, whereas conservatives feel government's role is to protect capitalism from cheaters. Then each person can rise or fall according to the effort they put into it.
Your posted numbers make my point exactly. You feel that those that succeed and make a lot of money are somehow evil. You feel that the government's role is to make sure that the rich and big corporations are punished and their money forcibly removed from them and redistributed.
A conservative feels that the government should only make sure that the rich and big corporations play by the rules, but the amount of money they make is up to them and what they do with the money they earned is up to them.
Conservatives see a rich man and say, "Wow, if he can do it so can I!"
Liberals see a rich man and say, "What a cheater we need to take him down."
Your post demonstrates my point.
CW
I disagree with the statement that “a liberal's ideology is based on emotion” because I am a rational person and I usually side with the views of liberals because they are more logical. Less government oversight might be a better philosophy if everyone was honest and altruistic, but that is an utterly fantastic assumption. History shows that greedy people will inevitably fill the void when government relaxes control.
But isn't it emotion that leads you to believe that the government is less greedy, more honest, and altruistic than we the people?
I don't know what government you have been observing. Have you ever asked yourself where you social security money is right now? It isn't where it is suppose to be because the government that you trusted with it has used it all up.
I can not see any logic in liberal thought. It is always based on an emotional view of "the way things ought to be" and not what they really are.
CW
CW
Today, fundamentally the ideological divide can be distilled to what is the approppriate role for the federal government. The Left seems to favor a more expansive role for Washington; in the economy, in the environment, and so om. The conservative tendency seems to be for the opposing view, for the government to keeps its involvement, indeed some might say interference, to a minimum. At the moment, the Left is represented by Democrats in Congess and of course the President. The Right is currently representated by the GOP majority in the House. Both sides seek office as both sides seek political power. However, neither will ever see their goals fully realized because there will always be enough opposition, both within and without, to frustrate either agenda. Hence the genius of the American political system.
Let's get this straight. Conservatives feed on FEAR and BIGOTRY not Reason as you put it. Your kind preach that "The blacks, the Muslims, the Mexicans, etc are taking the stuff we want and we need to stop them" The Liberals are the ones seeking better Education for all and a safety net for the sick, the old, and the unfortunate. It is not emotionalism that inspires the Liberal, but a sense of justice. Liberals support the right to collective bargaining because they realize the super rich can force their political will down our throat. Liberals support the folks in Wisconsin standing up for their rights. No we are not stupid or a bunch of emotional retards. We just have a vision you seem incapable of grasping.
Terry.Hirneisen
"Conservatives feed on FEAR and BIGOTRY not Reason" This is just not true. I realize that it is very common for some individuals to characterize their ideological opponents this way and I am never sure whether it is from ignorance or not but your use of the label "your kind" shows that you are prejudiced and bigoted in your attitudes regarding conservatives and that your bigotry precludes real dialogue.
I do not lay the blame for your display of prejudice and bigotry at the feet of liberals because I know many liberals who would not indulge in this kind of prejudice. This is a human condition and not a liberal, conservative, black or white.
You provide no support for your charges other than a dangerous ignorance and malevolence that characterizes all bigots no matter what their political persuasion, or race is.
The tenor of your post only supports my assertion that you lead by emotions rather than logic or fact. Your emotions distort conservative positions. This results in all of your arguments being straw man arguments.
Human-beings of all stripes are inclined to impose their political views on others and that is the reason our founding fathers created our constitution. Both liberals and conservatives would do well to heed that magnificent document.
CW
Christian Walker
The debate goes on for who a liberal is and who a conservative
is. Your article and the replies seem to argue the ideology of both groups. I don’t believe that the liberal will alter his ideology unless we all can recognize that throughout history there are the poor ( mostly uneducated or illiterate ),the so called rich (mostly highly educated and business orientated) and the go betweens (the middle class little education and moderately successful in society).All of them of their own
FREE choice have a place in society.
The conservative and the liberal will eventually fall in one class or another in society. The US Constitution is the foundation of our society. We are a nation of God given rights and freedoms. The people select the officials to represent them in the government in Washington. These elected officials take the oath of their office and it’s their responsibility to govern on behalf of the people
The problems today is that our government is corrupt and is not governing on behalf of the people.
Putting aside both Democrat and Republican ideology of either a liberal or conservative ideology, we the people are not being served as the Constitution requires .
It’s the present that ’’ we the people’’ must be concerned about and the future of our country. Today in Washington, sad to say, right is wrong and wrong is right. There is a right and a wrong that Congress and President Barak ‘’I’’ Obama must recognize if our country is to prosper and grow. Is spending $1 trillion every year since 2009, increasing the National Debt with little to show for spending money that the country doesn’t have. This past Feb the government just in 1 month spent another $222.5 billion, the highest deficit in all history. In 2007 the deficit for 12 months was $1.6 trillion.
Today the government is not only taking from the rich but from future unborn citizens. The middle class is becoming part of the poor class and the so called rich are becoming part of the middle class. Socialism works as long as there are the rich to support the ideology of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
If one believes in the laws of God ( 10 commandments) and our Government ( constitution ), it is wrong to TAKE from one to give to another, some would call that stealing and doing that breaks a law. Envy, begrudge, covet refer to one's attitude toward the possessions or attainments of others. To envy is to feel resentful and unhappy because someone else possesses, or has achieved, what one wishes oneself to possess, or to have achieved: to envy the wealthy. Charity begins at home not with the government in most cases.
In itself both ideologies are not evil or bad if there is a sense of honesty, integrity, fairness and love of our fellow man or woman.
I’m confident that the debate will continue!
Jon Ewall,
I can not argue with most of what you say; however, what we define as liberal today comes from a humanistic world view that does not acknowledge the existence of God in any real way. In today's liberal view, man is responsible for himself. The idea that God's authority established our nation and our unalienable rights is viewed as the sentiments of bumpkins just off the turnip truck.
The constitution is viewed as a flawed document that is in serious need of an update at best. Since the modern liberal does not equate the constitution with the authority of God they see no reason to abide by it, but instead it becomes an obstacle to their designs on a humanistic utopia where their moral vision of the nation is the rule of the land.
Even though liberals at large may give some lip service to God or a god consept, the fact remains that by their actions and behavior, to them God is dead.
This is one reason today's liberals and today's conservatives will never find common ground.
CW
Christian Walker
I believe that our Constitution was drafted by man with the help of a superior being. No way could it be completed by meer mortals.God is mentioned and appears on our buildings,money and in the halls of congress.There is no doubt that our principles are under attack by members in our government.
This article is biased towards conservative thinking (the authors replies obviously show him defending conservative practices), but I think it does the best job of explaining both sides with minimal opinionated thoughts.
That Xicano guy is completely insane, though.
poverty is the rich and the governments fault. as long as a man works 40 hours a week in the richest country and working for the richest corporations in the world should have no problem obtaining food for himself and his children. but you wierdo republicans/conservatives want to take away things like food stamps. The poor class is being screwed over by the rich... to make it fair we iether need to step it up ourselves and demand they pay us the fruits of our labor, (einstein, why socialism) that sounds like a dream but it won't happen because the moment we demand such a thing we get fired and replaced while the law protects the owners from a violent uprising. so we need to use the government to make it fair... take money or resources from the rich and give them to the poor.
mac
''so we need to use the government to make it fair... take money or resources from the rich and give them to the poor.''
WHO IS ''WE''
WHO IS THE '' GOVERNMENT''
HOW does one believe that it is fair?
Who decides who is the poor?
STEALING FROM ANOTHER IS BREAKING THE LAW
ANARCHY???? is that the solution?
mac,
I can only hope you do not live close by and are at this moment enjoying a free ride off my dime.
If someone wants my help to get where I have gotten I am more than happy to help, but I'll be d*#!d if I will sit and stuff my money down the yawning mouths of birds that have long out grown the nest.
Get off your butt and advocate for yourself with you rown brain and back.
CW
mac
‘’we need to use the government to make it fair... take money or resources from the rich and give them to the poor‘’.
The Obama led government has placed 340 NEW regulations costing the private sector $65 billion to operate their businesses . The continuing threat to add more is the major reason why business is holding back on hiring more people . Result of which is 14 million out of work and a 9.1%unemployment crisis.
On Obama’s recent bus tour, the audience told the president that NEW government regulations are hurting the business industry. President Obama said that he will look into the matter, just another joke.
WORTH WATCHING
Sept 8, 2011 8:00 pm Presidential debate
Sept 9, 2011 President Obama speech to a joint session of Congress
Christian Walker
''I don't know what government you have been observing. Have you ever asked yourself where you social security money is right now? It isn't where it is suppose to be because the government that you trusted with it has used it all up.''
Obama wants to continue the pay roll tax deduction FOR WORKING TAXPAYERS. THE UNEMPLOYED DON'T GET a tax break. Also note what really is happening. The treasury is taking money from the General Fund and transferring funds to the Social Security Trust Funds to make up for the tax cuts for working citizens. Result is that WE the tax payers are indirectly paying for the tax breaks
If this is true, AMERICA BETTER WAKE UP!.
Hey, so I am a student of the sciences which are exact and definite in answer so I'm having difficulty in understanding a few key concepts :)
Questions:
1. Are you saying that a conservative approach is pro free markets, minimal govt intervention and also believes in giving each one what they deserve? Is it different from liberalism in that sense since liberalism is all about egalitarianism and equality for all?
2. How would Centrism then be as an ideology? Wouldn't it be the middle color blend between clearly defined red and blue, all confused like most agnostics are criticised of being, or would it be perfect? I feel centrism is too idealistic and is good for a vision but not practical. Am I right?
3. About Socialism from a worldview: Is it dead now? Was it only a passing fancy in the 60s 70s? Why did it fail?
4. From an economic perspective, for a developing nation such as India, can we say that conservatism would be the best approach to growth? Or would it be radical liberalism or socialism or modernism or something else?
Sorry if this was long...Wikipedia isn't really explaining all this well and I am keen on understanding politics since I have just attained voting age:)
Answer to questions as follows:
1. Yes, conservatism believes in the power of a free market because each individual should be free to choose what they will consume and not the state. As far as "giving each one what they deserve", no. Conservatism believes in each individual achieving the best that they can for themselves. Liberalism does not believe in equality for all, but instead an elite class determining what is fair for the masses.
2. Centrism is confused. What I am suggesting isn't centrism but, instead, taking the parts that work from each philosophy and applying them. There can be no doubt that civil rights was a necessity and long over due. So such righteous activism should not be discounted. Unfortunately the current activism is far from righteous and has devolved into a sort of corruption.
3. Sadly, socialism is far from dead. Right now it is alive and well in the USA. We are headed there at break-neck speed. Currently 50% of our population receives public money while the other 50% pays for that public money and if the trend continues...GAME OVER!
4. Conservatism, if fully exploited, would be India's best approach because it releases the individual to make something of themselves. However, for India, there is a lot to overcome before true conservatism could even be understood.
What a bunch of wingnuts!
Hmmmm? To which do you refer? Liberals or Conservatives? At any rate, if you know anything about wing nuts you would realize that they hold things together and are important in making sure that there are no lose screws.
CW
"no loose screws" he means
Hi Christian! Great article! Thanks for posting! -PM
Peter Keay 3 years ago
Good hub. Your last sentence is an excellent summary and closing. Unfortunately most people have a partisanship that completely outweighs any actual clear thinking. I hope other readers will be willing to put their ideological loyalties on hold as they give your article true consideration rather than just finding ways to nit-pick at it.