A Hypothesis On Conservatives and Liberals

[SlowwHand]

The spectrum of degrees involving liberal to conservative was being discussed within a thread, and the thought occured to me that the need for discussion required it's own separate and distinct thread.

Radical Liberals and Radical Conservatives, are so unknowingly close to each other, they're about to bump asses.
Let me tell you why.

Most people envision this spectum as linear, moving from Left to Right.
The concept that I present to you now, is much the same as early exploration marking the difference between a flat world, and a round world.

Liberal-------------Moderate-------------Conservative.

I don't think the increments and terminology used between either point and Moderate is that critical.
What's critical is the addition of Radical, which follows.

Rad Lib----Liberal-----Moderate----Consevative---Rad Con

Now, rather than in the linear example we see above, make it circular.
In this manner you'll see that the Radicals becomes adjoined.

I'll stop here and let the analysts analyze, and we can go from there.

What do you think? Am I making myself clear as mud, again?

[Paul Hanson]

But surely radical liberals and radical conservatives are even more distinct from each other than your normal liberals and conservatives?

[chequita guevara]

God, now you're gonna get the Libertarians all hot and bothered.

[Stuie]

Yup, it's a circle not a line, with the far right and the far left basically sharing the same ideology. I learned that in 10th grade.

Or, you can do this with it...

[SlowwHand]

Thank you, Stuie.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
God, now you're gonna get the Libertarians all hot and bothered.

thats akin to pissing off the hermaphrodites.

[Arrian]

If there is such a thing as a radical liberal (which does sound oxymoronic), they would be the type that is extremely pushy about things like multiculturalism, liberal PC (I specify, because the conservs have PC too, of course), etc. I think PETA would fall in this category.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

I would also submit, in answer to Che, that a Libertarian by necessity would fall somewhere near the Moderate label.

[Arrian]

Libertarians aren't moderates. Moderates are the people willing to compromise. Libertarians, like Communists, aren't the compromising sort. They have other things in common with the commies too, actually.

-Arrian

[Stuie]

If you use that 2d graph I posted (which is called a Nolan graph, for those interested) a moderate would be dead center.

[chequita guevara]

radical - progressive - liberal - moderate - conservative - reactionary

Radicals are on the extreme left. Anarchists and Communists are radicals.

On the other end you find reactionaries. Fascists, monarchists, religious fundimentalists can all be found here.

Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats.

I put moderates on the right side because they are actually fundimentally conservative: opposed to rapid change, don't rock the boat, apathetics.

[Shi Huangdi]

This thread is abomination to politcal science

[Japher]

I always thought a radical was an extremist and could be used for any of the political associations.

[lord of the mark]

If what youre trying to say is that from a certain point of view, communism and fascism resemble each other - and should just be called "totalitarianism" this is a moderately old point of view associated with Hannah Arendt, George Orwell, etc. Of course lots of folks dont like it.

For a contemporary version, that relates this notion to Islamism and terror, see "Liberalism and Terror" by liberal (progressive? moderate radical? well, he writes for the The New Republic, The New Yorker and The American Prospect) Paul Berman.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
radical - progressive - liberal - moderate - conservative - reactionary


Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats.

Neo liberals are like moderates with opposable thumbs. Social democrats are like democratic socialists, but with a four chambered heart. Neo-conservatives are to trotskyites, as birds are to dinosaurs.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
radical - progressive - liberal - moderate - conservative - reactionary

This is what led to this thread. It's wrong.
As I said in an aside in the other thread, reactionaries occupy both "sides".
If you can accept the concept of circular, rather than linear, you can see what I'm telling you is correct.

[Arrian]

I put moderates on the right side because they are actually fundimentally conservative: opposed to rapid change, don't rock the boat, apathetics.

As someone who considers himself a moderate, I'd have to say that is fairly accurate (that moderates are slighly conservative by definition). "Apathetic" isn't really fair, though, because one can be a moderate and care deeply. Caring deeping just wouldn't translate into blowing up bridges or lying down in front of trains.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
I always thought a radical was an extremist and could be used for any of the political associations.

That's a very recent definition, only the past few decades.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
"Apathetic" isn't really fair, though,

I'm not saying all moderates are apathetic, just like I'm not saying fascists are also fundimentally religious monarchists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It's wrong.

Mmmm, what a cogent and well reasoned argument. My entire world view is completely shaken.

[Q Classic]

i still like my classification best of all, and besides, it's the only correct one.

wrong (leftist) -- moderate -- wrong (rightist)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
As I said in an aside in the other thread, reactionaries occupy both "sides".

Yes, but this implies you have a fundimental misunderstanding of what reactionary means. A reactionary is someone who wanted to go socially, politically, economically, religiously backwards in time. What we have today has gone to far, we need to go back to a simpler, more moral, etc. time.

So, many of the people who have seized control of the Republican Party are reactionaries. They want to return the US to the 19th Century, in terms of taxation, regulation, religion, sexual mores, and more.

Conservatives are fundimentally anti-change. This is good enough. Don't go any further, don't go back.

Moderates are to conservatives as liberals are to progressives.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i still like my classification best of all, and besides, it's the only correct one.

moderate

Moderates are weenies who can't be arsed to take a position. As they say in Texas, ain't nothin' in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. Which are you?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I'm not saying all moderates are apathetic, just like I'm not saying fascists are also fundimentally religious monarchists.

Im not saying all Socialists are Faurrists(sp?)....

[Arrian]

I'm not saying all moderates are apathetic, just like I'm not saying fascists are also fundimentally religious monarchists.

Ok, I must have misinterpretted what you were saying. I thought you might have been making a snide comment.

Moderates are weenies who can't be arsed to take a position.

Ah. So I didn't misinterpret. You were being snide.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, but this implies you have a fundimental misunderstanding of what reactionary means. A reactionary is someone who wanted to go socially, politically, economically, religiously backwards in time. What we have today has gone to far, we need to go back to a simpler, more moral, etc. time.

So, many of the people who have seized control of the Republican Party are reactionaries. They want to return the US to the 19th Century, in terms of taxation, regulation, religion, sexual mores, and more.

Conservatives are fundimentally anti-change. This is good enough. Don't go any further, don't go back.

Moderates are to conservatives as liberals are to progressives.

INMH Liberal differs from social democrat, at least in the US largely in that liberals are more focused on legal rights, while soc dems are focused on economic justice, and liberals tend to take be of upper middle class origin and to dislike class based politics,(other than occasionally as weapon against conservatives) while soc dems of whatever origin tend to more frankly advocate working class interests. Progressive tends either to be an anachronism (as if Teddy Roosevelt were still President) or a euphemism (generally for fellow travelers) however I would accept the following statement "Progressives are to socialists, as liberals are to social democrats"

[SlowwHand]

One of the whole points of this is to demonstate that Radicals of either persuasion spend too much time and energy shouting to each other along this perception of linear politics, when all they need to do is turn around and discuss.

[lord of the mark]

Moderates are people who take positions the left doesnt like, yet still want to get the moral credit for opposing the right, which moral credit the left wants to monopolize.

[chequita guevara]

To make you hapy, Sloww, I will tell you what you are trying to say. Radicals and reactionaries are mirror images.

[Arrian]

I repeat: moderates are those who believe in compromise. They will take a middle road between the radicals and reactionaries and both sides will **** on them for it. Which is fine, since we moderates think both of those groups are nuts anyway.

-Arrian