Conservative and Liberal

I wish someone would define for me the exact position that incorporates every person in each of those labels.  There's also "libertarian."

I think there are a great number of people who are "independent" but maybe incorporate more of one or the other

When I think, "liberal," I think Woodstock and flower power in the 60's on the the streets of San Franciso.  I think opposition to war except in the worst of circumstances.

On the other hand, I also think of total acceptance of all people without bias, money for education, public infrastructure, health care and work programs that lift the impoverished into hope.

When I think conservative, I think those with a fixed religious dogma that wish to impose that dogma on everyone.  I think of big profit corporations for whom war is a moneymaker.

I think of self-serving people who believe their own blessed lives are an example of their "worthiness" while those less fortunate deserve their troubles.

I think of private schools and discrimination, lack of inclusion in the benefits of a democratic society for all but the few entitled, hanging on to benefits at the detriment of those who should receive care and compassion - or care and compassion as a dole, a do-gooder mentality - I have $zillions so I can go to Haiti and help a few people and look good in between by trips to the Italian Riviera and driving one of my five $zillion cars.

I think of fiscal stupidity instead of intelligence.  Cuts for the purpose of cuts instead of thoughtful expenditures and management of resources at all levels.

These are things that come to mind based on the press in various sources.  My "thoughts" do not mean that I believe a person who is "conservative" or "liberal" is really these things - it's just the image portrayed by spokespeople.

I'd like to see a thoughtful side by side prepared by representatives of both thought streams to actually see where there are common beliefs and where they begin to part - which beliefs are simply axioms that no longer apply and which beliefs benefit the nation regardless of their source.

So much of what we say is a repeat of the words we hear instead of our own thoughtful analysis.  We name call and label and stereotype because we don't have the knowledge to clearly express our views.  Thus, labeling a person automatically puts "bad" or "good" into the context where I love to quote my minister who said, "It rains on good and bad and the sun shines on good and bad and the results may be positive or detrimental. What is good and bad most often depends on point of view, whether you are in the flood or praising God for watering crops."

DK.  What you wrote makes sense and I too would like clarification.  Actions contribute to sterotyping.  The actions of some conservatives and liberals brand everyone in that group. 
Perhaps we can come up with a new label. 

I also think one needs to clarify defense and offense.  We often hear that some foreign action threatens our national interest and therefore defense is brought to bear.  Iraq was considered a threat to your national defense.  We know that was BS.  Syria is not a national defense issue.  It is an issue that requires action, but action supported and or led by the UN.

http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Wars-Struggle-Education-ebook/dp/B001FSJA9I/ref=tmm_kin_title_0

This book was originally published in 1991, but is still in print because it is still relevant.

It gives a detailed look at the cultural, religious, political thinking in this country.  Hunter uses the terms "orthodox" and "progressive," but the meaning is the same.

It seems to me that most people are on a spectrum that ranges from far right to right of center to left of center and far left with differing individual views running all along that spectrum.  One can be left of center in some areas, and right of center in others.

There is a battle going on these days between the extremes, or at least the media would have us think so  It sells books and newspapers, increases viewers on TV, blogs and websites, and manages to create a furor on forums by creating crises that focus on the differences between people rather than on how we are all alike.

So long as we allow ourselves to get caught up in this either/or "war" rather than a middle ground  perspective that allows us to see the value on both sides, we will never achieve peace, and until we can find peace in our everyday activities, right here and now, we will continue to have real wars in the larger world around us, and we cannot deny their existence. In one way or another we will eventually become involved, and the fallout is never pretty.

Applying labels to ourselves and others does not help to find a solution.

When you ask someone to define those terms, the definitions often reflect that person's biases as yours did in the original post.

Remember, I said in my original post that those were "thoughts" that I had based on what I have heard - of course not all of what I have heard.  They do not reflect my opinion because I am one of the confused these days who is seeking definitions where there may not be any.

I just know that people are so polarized politically that once were great friends socially.  I always thought I was fiscally conservative and socially progressive which to me meant that I believe in going through every single government office and cutting the fat, waste, corporate welfare, parties, cars, travel budgets, grants that you don't get repeated unless you spend it all (on reams of paper), duplication, inefficiency and people who can't cut the mustard, unique pension systems and benefits that encourage laggards and discourage go-getters, and analyze the services so that those that are needed are provided and those that are duplicates are eliminated and more.  I mean more and at every level from city to state to national - anything at all that is paid by the blood, sweat and tears of the common person to meet their needs.  I want the IRS system straightened up and the loopholes closed.

On the other end of the spectrum, I believe that a wealthy country needs to have a  healthy populace, not just health for the few.  When everyone is healthy, it keeps everyone healthy and keeps costs down.  Therefore, I want universal health care.  Something is better than nothing and something that isn't perfect can be repaired.  Shame on those that would deny health care to so many when they themselves have cadilac healthcare at my expense.  I believe in universal education and universal suffrage as a right and privilege of citizenship in this great country.  I believe in training for jobs and not bringing in people to fill jobs (tech industry) that we have a ready pool of employees eager to go to work.  I believe in providing a pay as you go education for foreign students and providing them a citizenship path to use that great education to benefit the country that trained them.  I believe in an immigration policy that rewards the industrious people who do the backbreaking work no one else chooses to do.  That has always been a starting place for upward mobility and the strength of this nation with one immigration wave after another from its beginnig.

I believe in supporting start-up businesses because they are the source of jobs for now and in the future.  They need laws and regulations that encourage their sustainability and growth.  I do not believe in pure subsidies to any industry except on an emergency and prove it basis, temporary.

I believe in foreign aid for which nations must apply and meet goals and objectives tied to that aid or lose it, just like grants within our own nation.  I do believe in supporting compassionate services across the world wherever needed and at home and abroad, this is a responsibility of a wealthy country.  There may be better and more efficient ways than currently.



I agree, Al, that people define the terms with Bias.  We each collect information to support our own point of view.  That's why I am so hungry for an unbiased perspective to even challenge my own.

I cannot  believe the mess this once great nation has deteriorated into.   Cooperation seems nonexistent  and reason has fled.  What to do?  Don't ask me.

alice wrote:

I cannot  believe the mess this once great nation has deteriorated into. 

Probably the first time anybody said that was just after the first meeting of the Continental Congress in 1774. They've been saying it ever since.

When exactly were those good old days when we weren't in a mess?

The fundamental differences I see are:

Conservative: A belief that economic health depends on the success of business. Therefore, legislation should favor businesses, large and small, over the needs of the individual. When business is booming, people will thrive. More paychecks, more buying, more tax revenue. Less regulation. Trickle-down.

Liberal: A belief that the individual's welfare trumps the needs of businesses. Therefore, legislation should favor the individual irrespective of the effects it has on economic strength and growth of businesses. Government of the people... When the under-privileged are entitled, they will prosper and add to the economy. More regulation. Trickle up.

Libertarian: A belief that we need little or no legislation with less government meddling in the affairs of the people. Free will is more sacred than law. No regulation. A trickle will seek its own level.

As you consider specific polarizing issues as endorsed or rejected by those camps, you find many incongruities. For example, those who call themselves conservative tend to oppose abortion and mercy killing (pro life), yet they oppose gun control and favor the death penalty (pro death). Liberals hold the opposite positions. Both sides are at odds with themselves on the overriding issue of life vs. death.

Libertarians would leave it to the individuals.

The politicization of such incongruities is not so much a function of beliefs as it is the number of votes that a position will deliver. And that's how a constitutional democracy is supposed to work. Leaders represent the wants and needs of their constituencies. Which is why attitudes toward issues shift with the trends of voters. Demographics is the engine that drives democracy. Right (vs wrong) is a function of the will of the majority. The campaign trumps the record. Eloquence is more important than intelligence. Sound bites overshadow detailed analysis. Bumper stickers are read more than books.

Getting elected and getting the job done have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The most common criticism levied on any elected official is that he or she failed to deliver on a campaign promise.

It seems to me, compromise used to occur.  I am probably wrong.  That's okay.

8/29/2013

                       I love and believe in the Parlimentary System like England, I
                       don't trust nor believe in Congress anymore, they lie, cheat
                       and tell the AMerican public what they want. Parliment in
                       England just voted against striking Syria, Prime Minister
                       Cameron has agreed to go buy their decision...We need a
                       Parliment...

                                                     Cheers..Joe....

So, Joe, what is the difference between the way the British Parliament functions and the way Congress functions - on a day-to-day basis?

Wow! I love this discussion.  It is breaking out some of the issues and comparisons, even to comparison with another country's system.

8/29/2013

                  I love the way Parliment works, we need a parliment..As they say if you don't
                  like it , vote it out....Yeah England..God Bless the Queen.

                                                       Cheers..Joe..

I keep going back to the linguist, George Lakoff, and his explanation of the difference between the conservative and liberal perspectives.

He uses the metaphor of the family to explain.

In a conservative household, the family is run by a strict father who insists on absolute adherence to the rules.  This father is a strict disciplinarian  There is a proper structure, and the structure must be adhered to.  It is the father's duty to see to it that the "children" follow the rules, and when they do not, justice is applied  The successful family thrives on order, and the control and power is in the hands of this diligent father.

The head of the liberal family is a nurturing parent - note that the is a "parent," and can be either a father, a mother, or both working in tandem.  It is the hob of the nurturer to see to it that the children are well fed and healthy, to understand that crises are not always their full responsibility (responsibility is considered more than blame)  THis parent is aware that positive/negative behavior do not always result in parallel circumstances, that laws followed to the letter do not always result in justice, and that mercy is as important a factor.  Acceptance and forgiveness are key 
components.

This outlook explains the incongruities.  At the base of the equation, for conservative/orthodox/fathers is the law and the state of order that adhering to it produces.  Abortion is a crime against God and the state.  Guns and their protection are a constitutional right, and we have much to fear from the lawlessness of others.

To a liberal/progressive/genderless parent, laws should always be tempered with mercy, depending on the individual circumstances; violence is the least acceptable response to an injustic; and guns need to be kept from those who are willing to resort to violence as a primary means of getting needs met and of individual power.

8/29/2013

                                 Ah ....?

joefrank wrote:

8/29/2013

                  I love the way Parliment works, we need a parliment..As they say if you don't
                  like it , vote it out....Yeah England..God Bless the Queen.

                                                       Cheers..Joe..

So, enlighten me.  How does parliament work.  How is it different from congress?  How do they go about "voting it out"?

What are their procedures and regulations?

I have and inquiring mind, and would like to know.

8/29/2013

                     Ann..

                            Here it is !
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlimentary_democracy

                                         Cheers..Joe...

Thank you, Joe. Now, explain to me how these procedures will make a difference if used be congress.

8/29/2013

                           Ann..

                                 Here it is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure

                            Cheers..Joe...

8/30/2013

                        Difference political parties in the USA..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

                                        Cheers......Joe..

alice wrote:

It seems to me, compromise used to occur.

It did. The absence of compromise is not a reflection of one side or the other. It is the consequence of the proven success of negative campaigning. And since the next campaign begins the day you take office, each side concentrates more on discrediting the other than on the job at hand.

To succeed at governing, you must compromise with the opposition, which suggests a mutual agreement. To succeed at campaigning, you must discredit the opposition, which rules out compromise.


According to Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."