Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals

[questor]

I have been accused on this site of being a closet liberal. This ,of course, has severely hurt my feelings and caused some of my closest friends to question my sanity as well as fealty to the cause of trying to make a better world. In order to clear the air, as well as my restore my reputation, I would like to offer some links and dicussion on the differences between conservatives and liberals so that those who are preparing to vote in the November election can better understand the philosophy of the candidates and party they are voting for. I trust this discussion will be civil and rewarding for both sides. The link is at the end of the posting.

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #1

Fiscal and social differences between Conservatives and Liberals:

 

''Conservatives believe in lowering taxes for all tax payers. Obviously, those who pay higher taxes will get the biggest break with an even percentage. Example, Mr. Smith makes $100,000.00 a year and his taxes are cut by $2500.00 while Mr. Jones makes $50,000.00 a year are cut by $1,250.00 The percentage is the same. The one who earns more gets more back. Common sense...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #2

Conservatives want a smaller, less intrusive government. Allow people to do what they want as long as it’s within the law.

Liberals want more control over the people. They want to limit as many rights as possible and keep control over all sorts of behavior...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #3

Education is always a hot topic. Democrats were in charge of education for more than 40 years, complaining during every election about the need for more funding. They got more funding every year, compliments of the tax payers. Education in this country is in a sorry state these days. Pouring money on a school doesn’t improve anything but a few bank accounts.

Conservatives believe that education should be a matter of parental choice, not societal formulas...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #4

Welfare is another sore subject, every election year. Conservatives believe in helping people get on their feet. If a single parent or family is in financial trouble beyond their ability to manage, Welfare is a good safety net. It was never intended to be a permanent lifestyle!...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #5

The differences between Conservatives and Liberals touch every aspect of American life. How about health care? Hillary Clinton wanted to turn one third of the nation’s economy over to a health care system that would have been a nightmare. The liberal approach is to raise taxes and set up a new bureaucracy to choose who gets care and who doesn’t. Canada tried that, by the way. Maybe that’s why so many Canadians come to the US for treatment?...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #6

Race relations are very popular in election years. Liberals love to race-bait at every opportunity. They talk about the poor, down-trodden blacks and how the Republicans are keeping them down. Let’s examine this, shall we? Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, freed the slaves. Republicans have fought for civil rights against Democrats and ultimately won. Democrats taunt and insult Conservative black people like J.C.Watts, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and others for being “Uncle Toms”...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #7

The War on Terror is also a big issue. After 9-11, we had to do something to insure that it couldn’t happen again. Kissing terrorist butts hadn’t worked before and it wouldn’t work again...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES:#8

Abortion is always a “hot button” issue. Liberals have no problem with killing unborn children. They want to spare convicted murderers, terrorists, and enemy combatants, citing that killing is wrong while being in favor of the wholesale slaughter of pre-born children and brain damaged people (euthanasia)...

 

The link to this information is: The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives - Associated Content

 

This gives an idea of one conservatives view of the dichotomy of ideas.

My own view may differ in some respects, I always try to ascertain which course of action is best for society. Shouldn't everyone?

[Moontanman]

I have been accused on this site of being a closet liberal. This ,of course, has severely hurt my feelings and caused some of my closest friends to question my sanity as well as fealty to the cause of trying to make a better world. In order to clear the air, as well as my restore my reputation, I would like to offer some links and dicussion on the differences between conservatives and liberals so that those who are preparing to vote in the November election can better understand the philosophy of the candidates and party they are voting for. I trust this discussion will be civil and rewarding for both sides. The link is at the end of the posting.

 

That acusation was done tongue in cheek, but like most conservatives the idea of satire is beyond your comprehension. :confused:

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #1

Fiscal and social differences between Conservatives and Liberals:

 

''Conservatives believe in lowering taxes for all tax payers. Obviously, those who pay higher taxes will get the biggest break with an even percentage. Example, Mr. Smith makes $100,000.00 a year and his taxes are cut by $2500.00 while Mr. Jones makes $50,000.00 a year are cut by $1,250.00 The percentage is the same. The one who earns more gets more back. Common sense...

 

No, liberals do not want to take from the rich and give to the poor, that is a conservative lie. The more you make the more you should be able to afford to pay. $1000 means quite a bit more to a poor man than even $10,000 to a rich man. I know, I've been both very poor and at least upper middle class. I would gladly pay 40% of my wages if I made 2 million dollars a year but 10% of someones wages who makes $25,000 a year is far more hurtful to that person.

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #2

Conservatives want a smaller, less intrusive government. Allow people to do what they want as long as it’s within the law.

Liberals want more control over the people. They want to limit as many rights as possible and keep control over all sorts of behavior. Example, cigarettes are still legal, but the liberal “smoking police” try to prevent smokers from even lighting up outdoors. Now the “food police” are going to tell people what they can and can’t eat?

 

That is such BS! The last few decades show this to be BS, the last 7 years proves it. conservatives want complete control over everything every one does, from stupid drugs wars to sexual orientation Conservatives stay awake at night thinking of more rules to make everyone follow. The government bureaucracy has ballooned under the conservatives and deficit is at an all time high, get real, the conservative party spends like a drunken sailor.

 

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #3

Education is always a hot topic. Democrats were in charge of education for more than 40 years, complaining during every election about the need for more funding. They got more funding every year, compliments of the tax payers. Education in this country is in a sorry state these days. Pouring money on a school doesn’t improve anything but a few bank accounts.

Conservatives believe that education should be a matter of parental choice, not societal formulas...

 

Again you are full of ****, busing did indeed make for better relations between all peoples. It also made sure that public funds were spent more equally on all schools and not just "white" schools. If parents were all smart enough to know what schools should teach you would have a point but it's obvious they do not in most cases. Private vouchers just take money away from public schools and allow parents to teach their kids religion. If they want to teach religion let them pay it out of their own pockets or maybe bite the bullet and make their children go to church.

Yes we should expect them to be taught well and religion based BS is not the way to go. Parents cannot be trusted to choose what their kids should be taught, times change and what worked in the 1950's is not what will work today.

Public schools are bad because money is not being spent on the things it should be. I was very much active in schools when my sons were coming up and the struggle to keep funds spent on education and not on the school's conservative bureaucracy was almost overwhelming.

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #4

Welfare is another sore subject, every election year. Conservatives believe in helping people get on their feet. If a single parent or family is in financial trouble beyond their ability to manage, Welfare is a good safety net. It was never intended to be a permanent lifestyle!...

 

Conservatives are just as much responsible for the welfare system as the liberals. The welfare system is a compromise of bad ideas from both sides. It allows people to get more money by having more children and it punishes those who want to climb out. Both sides of the fence should ashamed of what they have done to the welfare system.

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #5

The differences between Conservatives and Liberals touch every aspect of American life. How about health care? Hillary Clinton wanted to turn one third of the nation’s economy over to a health care system that would have been a nightmare. The liberal approach is to raise taxes and set up a new bureaucracy to choose who gets care and who doesn’t. Canada tried that, by the way. Maybe that’s why so many Canadians come to the US for treatment?...

 

It takes some real nerve to say what we have now is better than almost anything else. Conservatives don't give **** if anyone has heath care, it was Liberals who pioneered the entire concept. conservatives just want to get rich off sick people and their misery.

 

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #6

Race relations are very popular in election years. Liberals love to race-bait at every opportunity. They talk about the poor, down-trodden blacks and how the Republicans are keeping them down. Let’s examine this, shall we? Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, freed the slaves. Republicans have fought for civil rights against Democrats and ultimately won. Democrats taunt and insult Conservative black people like J.C.Watts, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and others for being “Uncle Toms”...

 

WOW, you paint such a lovely picture of the republican party but do you point out that at the time of Lincoln the Republican party was the party of the Liberals OMFG! Yes times change and the parties have switched places over the years, more than once! If not for the liberals Jim Crow laws would still be in place women would still not be able to vote! And we would not even be able to have a black president much less a woman vice president.

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #7

The War on Terror is also a big issue. After 9-11, we had to do something to insure that it couldn’t happen again. Kissing terrorist butts hadn’t worked before and it wouldn’t work again...

 

This rabid fear mongering will not stand! Our Glorious Fearless Leader lied! He lied, bald faced lies! He went to war against a country that posed no threat to the US, that had no role in the 9/11 attack and he did it with lies and obfuscations, half truths, and BS. People died, tens of thousands of human beings died, because of his lies! He is a lier, nothing more than a common lier whose mouth is as firmly fixed to the middle eastern oil tit as any of the terrorists. Obama has said he will continue the war in Afghanistan and will send more troops and will get Osama. The war in Afghanistan is legitimate, the war in Iraq was a show for Bush to get his rocks off trying to kill the guy who tried to kill his father.

 

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES:#8

Abortion is always a “hot button” issue. Liberals have no problem with killing unborn children. They want to spare convicted murderers, terrorists, and enemy combatants, citing that killing is wrong while being in favor of the wholesale slaughter of pre-born children and brain damaged people (euthanasia)...

 

 

The link to this information is: The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives - Associated Content

 

This gives an idea of one conservatives view of the dichotomy of ideas.

My own view may differ in some respects, I always try to ascertain which course of action is best for society. Shouldn't everyone?

 

Again you lie! Liberals have never been in favor of killing brain damaged people, euthanasia, it is the conservatives who favor this sort of thing, sterilization of the poor, or the mentally ill has long been the domain of the conservative not the liberal. Abortion is something that should be limited but only the woman who wants one should be able to decide that. Yes late term abortions should not be allowed, I would be favor of limits to abortions but not wholesale limits. Conservative values on this would even limit birth control, I guess you want more people to send off to bullshit wars based on lies!

[jackson33]

Moon; You DO understand your arguing with S.L. Bradish, a rather far right and ignorant conservative. I'll argue his opinions later, but your not going to like my arguments or your version of them.

 

questor; Your the basic 'Limbaugh' conservative. Sometimes, even after 20 years of listening to him, I wonder if he understands there is no one person that can be the conservative he tries to relate to an audience. The down on McCain or the appraisal of Romney, or a realistic approach to illegal immigration or in fact his attitudes on abortion, just a few examples. Roger Hedgecock, a popular substitute (for Limbaugh) and I also enjoy listening to his views, believes planet earth was created 6000 years ago or so... I will later respond to you as well, but wish I knew where you differ from Bradish, as you infered...

[Moontanman]

Moon; You DO understand your arguing with S.L. Bradish, a rather far right and ignorant conservative. I'll argue his opinions later, but your not going to like my arguments or your version of them.

 

questor; Your the basic 'Limbaugh' conservative. Sometimes, even after 20 years of listening to him, I wonder if he understands there is no one person that can be the conservative he tries to relate to an audience. The down on McCain or the appraisal of Romney, or a realistic approach to illegal immigration or in fact his attitudes on abortion, just a few examples. Roger Hedgecock, a popular substitute (for Limbaugh) and I also enjoy listening to his views, believes planet earth was created 6000 years ago or so... I will later respond to you as well, but wish I knew where you differ from Bradish, as you infered...

 

I wasn't aware of who he is but what he is seems obvious, I was having fun, I was hoping he would just explode in a shower of sparks if I keep ragging him long enough. Don't worry about what I like, I am used to being wrong, I don't mind it a bit, I am often wrong due to ignorance but never from stupidity like some people we know. I often watch Rush too, I see it as humor, no one could be that stupid with out saying something funny every once in a while! Rush Limbaugh, worst person in the world! I am really not as liberal as some would believe but I am also not conservative, I like to think of myself as somewhat too intelligent to follow anyone without question, doesn't make me right all the time but at least my mistakes are my own!

[questor]

Moon, I am posting links from articles explaining a number of individuals opinions of the difference in thinking of conservatives and liberals. If you disagree, why not post articles proving otherwise?

 

The differences between Conservatives and Liberals

The interesting part of this article is not the topic (a dispute on drug policy in British Columbia), but the insights into the different moral systems of conservatives and liberals (in the Canadian or American sense). Proffessor Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia social psychologist, has developed a system to explain the different moral systems of conservatives and liberals.

 

In his view there are five foundations people use to define morality:

 

Harm: whether someone is harmed or harm is reduced.

Reciprocity: whether something is fair and treats people fairly and justly.

In-group: whether something betrays the group.

Hierarchy: whether something is respectful of authority and superiors.

Purity: whether or not something is disgusting.

Haidt says that Liberals only use the first two - and don't respond to arguments based on the other three, while conservatives use all five, and therefore will find arguments based solely on the first two unconvincing. There could be a real lesson for political communications here.

 

In my opinion, a liberal society culminates in a socialistic society , which seems to destroy a persons ability to succeed according to his ambitions and aspirations. Do we want to live in a socialistic society, or in one that gives free rein to a person's abilities? I have never talked to a business owner who would choose socialism.

[Moontanman]

Moon, I am posting links from articles explaining a number of individuals opinions of the difference in thinking of conservatives and liberals. If you disagree, why not post articles proving otherwise?

 

The differences between Conservatives and Liberals

The interesting part of this article is not the topic (a dispute on drug policy in British Columbia), but the insights into the different moral systems of conservatives and liberals (in the Canadian or American sense). Proffessor Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia social psychologist, has developed a system to explain the different moral systems of conservatives and liberals.

 

In his view there are five foundations people use to define morality:

 

Harm: whether someone is harmed or harm is reduced.

Reciprocity: whether something is fair and treats people fairly and justly.

In-group: whether something betrays the group.

Hierarchy: whether something is respectful of authority and superiors.

Purity: whether or not something is disgusting.

Haidt says that Liberals only use the first two - and don't respond to arguments based on the other three, while conservatives use all five, and therefore will find arguments based solely on the first two unconvincing. There could be a real lesson for political communications here.

 

In my opinion, a liberal society culminates in a socialistic society , which seems to destroy a persons ability to succeed according to his ambitions and aspirations. Do we want to live in a socialistic society, or in one that gives free rein to a person's abilities? I have never talked to a business owner who would choose socialism.

 

I my opinion, a conservative society culminates in a fascist society. Manipulating the population by lies, and fear mongering is no way to run a government. If you disagree I suggest you vote republican, I will vote for someone who's policies do not support telling lies that result in war and death. We are total odds with each other, I withdraw from the discussion, you win the battle I will win the war.

[questor]

Moon, before you run away, take a look at these stats:

 

American Battle Deaths Recent Wars:

 

Second World War....291,557- Pres. at beginning, F.D. Roosevelt, Democrat

 

Korean War......33,741- Pres. at beginning , Truman, Democrat

 

Vietnam War.....47,424- Pres. at beginning, Johnson, Democrat

 

Current War.... 4,093- Pres. at beginning, Bush, Republican

 

The way I read this, an American is much less likely to lose his life under a Republican president.

[Essay]

Moon, before you run away, take a look at these stats:

 

American Battle Deaths Recent Wars:

 

Second World War....291,557- Pres. at beginning, F.D. Roosevelt, Democrat

 

Korean War......33,741- Pres. at beginning , Truman, Democrat

 

Vietnam War.....47,424- Pres. at beginning, Johnson, Democrat

 

Current War.... 4,093- Pres. at beginning, Bush, Republican

 

The way I read this, an American is much less likely to lose his life under a Republican president.

I think this is just an example of war deaths decreasing with time (& with increasing war technology and medical knowledge); but unrelated to administration. If you go further back in time (like the Civil War, -Repub.) the death toll is even greater, into the millions, I think.

 

:(

[Galapagos]

Moon, before you run away, take a look at these stats:

 

American Battle Deaths Recent Wars:

 

Second World War....291,557- Pres. at beginning, F.D. Roosevelt, Democrat

 

Korean War......33,741- Pres. at beginning , Truman, Democrat

 

Vietnam War.....47,424- Pres. at beginning, Johnson, Democrat

 

Current War.... 4,093- Pres. at beginning, Bush, Republican

 

The way I read this, an American is much less likely to lose his life under a Republican president.

 

The decrease in casualties of war and violence in general has little to do with the parties in office. Steven Pinker elaborates in his article "AHistory of Violence":

Edge 206-A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

by Steven Pinker

At the century scale, it is hard to find quantitative studies of deaths in warfare spanning medieval and modern times.

[...]

Social histories of the West provide evidence of numerous barbaric practices that became obsolete in the last five centuries, such as slavery, amputation, blinding, branding, flaying, disembowelment, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, and so on. Meanwhile, for another kind of violence—homicide—the data are abundant and striking. The criminologist Manuel Eisner has assembled hundreds of homicide estimates from Western European localities that kept records at some point between 1200 and the mid-1990s. In every country he analyzed, murder rates declined steeply—for example, from 24 homicides per 100,000 Englishmen in the fourteenth century to 0.6 per 100,000 by the early 1960s.

 

On the scale of decades, comprehensive data again paint a shockingly happy picture: Global violence has fallen steadily since the middle of the twentieth century. According to the Human Security Brief 2006, the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 per year in this decade. In Western Europe and the Americas, the second half of the century saw a steep decline in the number of wars, military coups, and deadly ethnic riots.

 

Zooming in by a further power of ten exposes yet another reduction. After the cold war, every part of the world saw a steep drop-off in state-based conflicts, and those that do occur are more likely to end in negotiated settlements rather than being fought to the bitter end. Meanwhile, according to political scientist Barbara Harff, between 1989 and 2005 the number of campaigns of mass killing of civilians decreased by 90 percent.

 

A video for those interested in Pinker's argument:

Steven Pinker on the myth of violence | Video on TED.com

[jackson33]

I think this is just an example of war deaths decreasing with time (& with increasing war technology and medical knowledge); but unrelated to administration. If you go further back in time (like the Civil War, -Repub.) the death toll is even greater, into the millions, I think.

:(

 

Its estimated 618k died on both sides of the CW, 213k from battle. FDR still holds the record for US deaths in WWII, with a little over a million US casualties (killed/wounded) and estimates up to 40/50 millions from all sides. Russian/German/American/Japanese...The CW was the highest US percentage of population, just under 2%. You might consider the reasons...

 

Moon; I would think lies by politicians and/or government or the manipulation of a people, should include the war on poverty. Poor people, much of the Black population have been told government will care for them by a select few since 1965 (43-44 years), while the rhetoric continues most of those same families remain in poverty, waiting for the results. Wouldn't it have been better then to demand something for the assistance, like getting a job, getting married, going to school or something....

[Moontanman]

Its estimated 618k died on both sides of the CW, 213k from battle. FDR still holds the record for US deaths in WWII, with a little over a million US casualties (killed/wounded) and estimates up to 40/50 millions from all sides. Russian/German/American/Japanese...The CW was the highest US percentage of population, just under 2%. You might consider the reasons...

 

Moon; I would think lies by politicians and/or government or the manipulation of a people, should include the war on poverty. Poor people, much of the Black population have been told government will care for them by a select few since 1965 (43-44 years), while the rhetoric continues most of those same families remain in poverty, waiting for the results. Wouldn't it have been better then to demand something for the assistance, like getting a job, getting married, going to school or something....

 

Oh I agree, lies and fear mongering has no excuse no matter who is using it or why, in our current situation tens of thousands of human beings died due to these lies and fear tactics, most were non combatants in an area where war was justified by lies and fear tactics. No excuse for that , none what so ever. As I said before I cannot give unquestioned support to any political party or cause. It's very sad the decision seems to be between the lesser of two evils but that has been the way of things through out my living memory.

[modest]

FDR still holds the record for US deaths in WWII, with a little over a million US casualties...

 

You might consider the reasons...

 

Apparently FDR invaded Poland and bombed Pearl Harbor :(

 

~modest

[ChunTzu]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #1

Fiscal and social differences between Conservatives and Liberals:

 

''Conservatives believe in lowering taxes for all tax payers. Obviously, those who pay higher taxes will get the biggest break with an even percentage. Example, Mr. Smith makes $100,000.00 a year and his taxes are cut by $2500.00 while Mr. Jones makes $50,000.00 a year are cut by $1,250.00 The percentage is the same. The one who earns more gets more back. Common sense...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #2

Conservatives want a smaller, less intrusive government. Allow people to do what they want as long as it’s within the law.

Liberals want more control over the people. They want to limit as many rights as possible and keep control over all sorts of behavior...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #3

Education is always a hot topic. Democrats were in charge of education for more than 40 years, complaining during every election about the need for more funding. They got more funding every year, compliments of the tax payers. Education in this country is in a sorry state these days. Pouring money on a school doesn’t improve anything but a few bank accounts.

Conservatives believe that education should be a matter of parental choice, not societal formulas...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #4

Welfare is another sore subject, every election year. Conservatives believe in helping people get on their feet. If a single parent or family is in financial trouble beyond their ability to manage, Welfare is a good safety net. It was never intended to be a permanent lifestyle!...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #5

The differences between Conservatives and Liberals touch every aspect of American life. How about health care? Hillary Clinton wanted to turn one third of the nation’s economy over to a health care system that would have been a nightmare. The liberal approach is to raise taxes and set up a new bureaucracy to choose who gets care and who doesn’t. Canada tried that, by the way. Maybe that’s why so many Canadians come to the US for treatment?...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #6

Race relations are very popular in election years. Liberals love to race-bait at every opportunity. They talk about the poor, down-trodden blacks and how the Republicans are keeping them down. Let’s examine this, shall we? Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, freed the slaves. Republicans have fought for civil rights against Democrats and ultimately won. Democrats taunt and insult Conservative black people like J.C.Watts, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and others for being “Uncle Toms”...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES: #7

The War on Terror is also a big issue. After 9-11, we had to do something to insure that it couldn’t happen again. Kissing terrorist butts hadn’t worked before and it wouldn’t work again...

 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES:#8

Abortion is always a “hot button” issue. Liberals have no problem with killing unborn children. They want to spare convicted murderers, terrorists, and enemy combatants, citing that killing is wrong while being in favor of the wholesale slaughter of pre-born children and brain damaged people (euthanasia)...

 

Kudos to Moontanman for taking the time to attempt to address this piece of text in a civilized manner. I, however, do not believe that such a biased explanation of "differences" warrants any reply except for simply saying that it's completely ignorant.

 

BTW, I'm pro-choice because I want to have wild, unprotected, debauchery-filled orgies all day, everyday without having to deal with the consequences. Just like any other liberal. Duh.

[Zythryn]

Apparently FDR invaded Poland and bombed Pearl Harbor ;)

 

~modest

 

Either that or Questor is implying that if a republican were in office they would have not responded to those events by going to war??

[questor]

Why not discuss the topic at hand? If some of you wish to rebut the statements concerning Libs and Cons, why not do so? If your mind directs you to be liberal, why not be proud of it and defend the differences? Be proud of your NEA led educational program, your ACLU, your demands to raise taxes, your desire for government to provide financial equality?

 

'' Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals

I heard an interesting comment on the way to work this morning, and it made me think. I generally listen to WMAL, a talk-radio station, mostly for the traffic and weather, but I do enjoy the interplay between Andy Parks and Fred Grandy on the "Andy & Grandy in the Morning Show." This morning, former-Congressman Grandy described conservatives as being optimistic about domestic policy and pessimistic about foreign policy; while liberals were the opposite, pessimistic about domestic policy and optimistic about foreign policy. When I heard the comment, I thought his generalization was right on the money. After additional reflection, I think Congressman Grandy is more right than he knew.

 

Think about it. Most conservatives, as foreign policy pessimists, take the “trust, but verify” approach of President Regan when it comes to foreign policy. Liberals, on the other hand, as foreign policy optimists want to be “engaged” in the international community, and see acceptance and trust from other countries as necessary aspects of our foreign policy. Conservatives want a strong national defense, to deter those who may want to harm us and to enable us to respond, in force, to those who try. Liberals want to cut back on defense spending and limit military actions. Pessimistic conservatives see a need for a strong foreign policy, a “speak softly and carry a big stick” approach, while optimistic Liberals see a need for international approval and take a “dialogue will solve everything” approach.

 

On the domestic front most conservatives, as domestic optimists, believe that anyone can rise above the circumstances of their birth through hard-work and perseverance. Liberals, as domestic pessimists, believe that the Government must step in to help those less fortunate and that we all must pay (through larger taxes) to be fair and even the playing field. Optimistic conservatives emphasize the individual, while pessimistic Liberals emphasize the collective-whole. Conservatives want less government and are optimistic that less regulation and less tax will be an incentive for growth. Liberals want more government, more regulation and more taxes to fund them; because they’re pessimistic about our ability to govern our actions without someone telling us how to do it.

 

Now I’ve known for some time that there is a word of difference between Conservatives and Liberals (even though sometimes the lines become blurred), but former-Congressman Grandy’s comment this morning sure brought the blurry picture into focus for me. ''

Posted by lela at 11:46 AM

Link: Harmless Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals

[questor]

This is the last link I intend to publish on this subject. It is a little more detailed than the others and more explanatory. As of yet there have been no liberal explanations of what ''true liberalism'' is all about.

 

''The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals

A couple of days ago, Rip set forth a challenge to Russell and I to describe the differences between liberalism and conservatism. This is even more challenging for me than it might be otherwise, because while I am conservative on some issues, I disagree with mainstream conservatism on others. For the sake of the discussion, though, I'll do my best to extrapolate.

 

Russell presents as his thesis below that a principal difference between liberalism and conservatism is that liberalism identifies with the "other" more often. He then thoughtfully provides a counter-example in the abortion debate. Here are some more groups with which I believe liberalism as ontology not only demonstrates little empathy, but in some cases open hostility:

 

Religious people

 

Wealthy people

 

White people --particularly white men, and even more particularly conservative white men

 

Asians as a minority group

 

Republicans

 

Alleged white-collar criminals (heard any liberals defending Enron executives recently?)

 

Whatever else one can say about liberalism, it isn't really about identifying with people who aren't like liberals. Unfortunately, feeling more empathy for those with whom we identify, and less for those with whom we don't, is not a conservative trait. It's a human trait.

 

Okay then, so what is liberalism about, in my view? What is it that liberalism thinks some minority groups, the environment, criminals, homosexuals, other nations, drug users, and the poor have in common?

 

Victimhood. To a liberal, they are all victims. Liberalism splits the world into pieces and looks for the external cause of the challenges each piece faces. The environment is the victim of Big Business and Big Oil. Criminals are victims of their upbringing, of an unfair system, and of religious zealots who would put them all to death. Homosexuals are victims of their own biology and of religious zealots who would oppress them. Other nations are victims of the United States and of neo-conservatives who would oppress them. Drug users are victims of strict drug laws and of religious zealots who would throw them in jail. Minorities--some of them, anyway--are victims of white men. Women that are pregnant but do not wish to be are victims of circumstance and/or of the men that made them pregnant. The poor are victims of their initial economic standing in life and of the rich, including Big Business.

 

This is the first of three differences I see between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism sees the individual--person, plant, and animal--as to a large degree powerless victims of fate or of an oppressor, who must be saved by the intervention of others--in particular, government. Conservatism, on the other hand, sees the individual as basically powerful, as valuable, and as both capable of and responsible for their own greatness. A good conservative wants to see each and every individual reach their highest potential, regardless of whether that person is white, black, rich, poor, virtuous, a criminal, straight, gay, American or not. They believe that nothing can elevate individuals higher than each person striving in freedom to be more, to be better, to be more successful. And they believe that in almost all ways, government not only works badly, but actively impedes the striving for individual greatness that provides the greatest opportunity for people, including the least fortunate among us, to elevate themselves. Conservatives see government as a necessary evil, really good at only one thing: the application of force. The job of government is to use force when needed to protect its citizens from the use of force by others. That means the military, for protection from hostile forces, and law enforcement for protection from criminals. And yet conservatives do believe that people need help from time to time. They believe that it is important to help those less fortunate then themselves, but think government as the wrong way to do it--not only ineffective, but also corrosive to the individual's own sense of responsibility for their own success.

 

A second difference between liberalism and conservatism is that both liberals and conservatives empathize with people, but liberals define their policy by reacting directly to that empathy, whereas conservatives tend to take, as Rip says, a more systems-oriented view of the world. That's where liberals get the idea that conservatism doesn't empathize. It does--but it also says there is a bigger picture that liberalism misses.

 

Conservatives empathize with the environment, for example, but perceive much of the "science" that says it is in grave jeopardy to be politically motivated. They don't believe the environment is in as much jeapordy as some--and liberalism--would have one believe. They believe that responsible stewardship of the environment need not require the harm to the economy--and, disproportionably, the poor--that would result from many liberal policies. And they believe that, in some cases, the liberal agenda would not in the end actually help the environment.

 

Conservatives--particularly devoutly Christians ones--empathize with criminals. They see all people as children of God and as sinners. But they believe that just as overindulgent parents raise spoiled children, so it is bad public policy to think that extending empathy to be "soft" on criminals is doing them or society a favor. They believe instead that doing so just creates more criminals.

 

Right or wrong, a good Christian conservative--which I am not, so I'm extrapolating, here--would say, "You are homosexual, and I empathize with you. It's totally okay to be homosexual. However, God says gay behavior is wrong, and you therefore ought not do it." Hence the expression, "hate the sin, love the sinner." Radio talk-show host Glenn Beck, who is both a religious conservative and a recovering alcoholic, draws this analogy. He says that he gives the benefit of the doubt to homosexuals who argue that sexual orientation is something you are born with, like hair or eye color. But, he says, he believes he was born an alcoholic. That's what he is. And, he says, that doesn't make it okay for him to drink, or absolve him from responsibility for his drinking. It means he has to overcome what he is to do what is right and to be who he should be. And he believes the same is true for homosexuals and homosexual behavior.

 

Most conservatives would make a similar argument with respect to drug use. Rush Limbaugh says that things he did while addicted to prescription pain medication were wrong.

 

Finally, as far as money is concerned, conservatives think there are many things that need to get done--and say, "Okay, so go do them. What are you waiting for?" Conservatism believes there is truth to Milton Freidman's statement that "When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it", and that this is not true when spending someone else's money.

 

Liberals, on the other hand, believe they know better than those people whose money it is how that money should be spent, and believe people can not be trusted to spend their own money on the things the liberal believes are important. And yet the liberals can not afford to do all the things they want to do. So rather than earn the money they need, or budget or save up so they can afford the things they think should be done, they say, "The rich have the money, so... we'll take it by force, and spend it how we see fit, because we know best." Conservatives are generous with their own money, while liberals are generous with someone other people's money.

 

Notice, by the way, the important distinction here between "conservatives and liberals" and "Democrats and Republicans". Taking money to which they are not entitled and spending it as they wish is a trait shared by both of our major political parties, unfortunately. But as far as the two political philosophies we've been discussing are concerned, it is conservatism that argues against it.''

 

Posted by David Gaw in Current Affairs & Politics at January 13, 2004 07:29 am. Link: Cuz We Said So: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals

[Moontanman]

Why are you so ashamed of being a liberal questor, you remind me of a black man who is white enough in appearance to pass but insists on not only passing for white but also insists on being a white supremacist. Just relax and be the liberal inside you questor, be proud of the liberal cause. Don't allow all the lies told to you by the conservatives cause you to hate your self. We liberals are really good people, we'll take care of you, you have nothing to fear. Come into the light of liberalism you have nothing to fear but fear it's self, we'll be gentile. ;) :bouquet: