A Hypothesis On Conservatives and Liberals

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Oh no! It's the commie-nazis...

See, when I posted my "hahaha!" thread, this is the type of stuff I'm looking for

[St Leo]

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

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

Fair enough. Do I get to be the moderate?

[Q Classic]

dp

[Q Classic]

as long as you agree with me.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

being moderate doesn't mean that you can't be arsed to take a position.

being moderate means that you're actually willing to listen to both sides of the argument, and try to find a common ground that will actually work.

I'm touched that someone else understands where I'm coming from -- sniff, sniff.

[chequita guevara]

Nobody understand where you're coming from.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats.

Yes, they're Chordates, but have yet to show any signs of meaningful mid and upper brain development. They do have a well developed whine reflex, though.

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

Actually, that's because you don't understand moderates. Moderates are opposed to "rapid change to prove we're actually doing something, regardless of whether or not rapid change is actually useful, or is doing more immediate harm than good as a result of the instability created."

Moderates are also not into rocking the boat just to show you can rock the boat, and thereby capsize the ****ing thing and drown everybody on board.

Moderates also aren't apathetic, we just don't foam at the mouth, get our whiskey and guns and have a cleaning party until we can't tell if we were usin' the Jack Daniels Old No. 7 for cleanin' and the Hoppe's No. 9 for drinkin', or was it s'pose to be the other way 'roun, diphead?

Nor do we proclaim "free love" while mixing Molotov cocktails in the kitchen sink and singing the Internationale.

Moderates never sound that good to the masses, because unlike ideologues, we realize that things really don't fit into nice 30 second sound bites, and also unlike ideologues, we'd prefer people to actually think about public policy and apply some intelligence, not just prance or goosestep in tune to the latest pronouncements from our ideological "leaders."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Well maybe its about time we had another. Lord knows you people need your clocks cleaned.

"We are a band of brothers, native to the soil,
fighting for our liberty with treasure, blood and toil...."

[SlowwHand]

Ditto.

[Kuciwalker]

I see what sloww is saying, and che is missing the point. (I'm going to use "radical" to mean "extreme", ok? I don't care about the technical definition.) The thing is, you look at the chain (insert more in-betweens as you will):

"extreme left" -- "left" -- "moderate/middle" -- "conservative" -- "extreme conservative"

The extreme left are the communists, and the extreme right are the fascists (I'll look at Libertarians in a moment). While it seems that they would be different, if you look at examples of fascism and communism, the only apparent difference is their propaganda. This is sloww's point. In implementation, communism and fascism are the same. Thus "extreme left" and "extreme right" are linked.

Now, looking at Libertarianism. Libertarianism is basically a right-wing (capitalist) anarchy . While technically there is a left-wing equivalent, it is inane (to paraphrase Sava, "everyone will be nice and happy to everyone else and sing Kumbaya and crap"). So, libertarianism lies attached to "right" and hanging off the circle.

[MrFun]

extreme left (burn all teddy bears and tear down all crosses) -- moderate (respects teddy bears and crosses) -- extreme right (shove teddy bears and crosses in everyone's faces!!!!!!)

[Berzerker]

This view leads to nothing being done except civil wars .

Those civil wars wouldn't happen if the damn moderates would take a position.

The only way a linear spectrum can reflect reality is if totalitarianism is at one end and anarchism is at the other.
That's why the Nolan grid shows communism and fascism in the same corner, because both are very autocratic in nature and should be together on a linear spectrum.

"Moderates" - a quite ambiguous term which means "liberal" on some issues and "conservative" on others (Gee, I'll join you out on that limb) - would be the "center". Liberals lean toward personal freedoms while typically opposing economic freedoms, and social conservatives lean toward economic freedoms while opposing personal freedoms they don't like. The result is both these groups love big government when it serves their desire to remove the freedoms they don't like.

Economic conservatives are right wing since they emphasize economic freedoms and generally support personal freedoms, liberals and social conservatives are left wing for their shared desire to remove one set of freedoms while preserving freedoms they cherish.

The linear spectrum from left to right:

totalitarianism - fascism, communism
democratic socialism - just a bit more extreme than liberalism
liberalism/social conservatism
"moderate" - the "center"
economic conservatism
libertarianism
anarchism

[Nubclear]

So now I'm a moderate?!

[MrFun]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker


"Moderates" - a quite ambiguous term which means "liberal" on some issues and "conservative" on others (Gee, I'll join you out on that limb) - would be the "center". Liberals lean toward personal freedoms while typically opposing economic freedoms, and social conservatives lean toward economic freedoms while opposing personal freedoms they don't like. The result is both these groups love big government when it serves their desire to remove the freedoms they don't like.
QUOTE]

I'm not quite sure I agree with you on this . . . . .

[David Floyd]

Obviously, I'm going to agree with Berzerker's grid.

I'd just point out that no, of course communists and Nazis aren't the same thing, except that they have the same fundamental belief in totalitarianism, and are anti-individual freedom.

[Berzerker]

I'm not quite sure I agree with you on this . . . . .

See, now there's a "moderate".

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting, Berz.

So how would one indicate something like foreign policy inside your grid?

For example, how would one accomodate someone who happened to fall in both the fiscal and socially conservative vectors, yet in terms of foreign policy was quite far to the left?

I think that's an important part of the political spectrum, since there are those who are both liberal and conservative who would support differing foreign policies.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

So how would one indicate something like foreign policy inside your grid?

For example, how would one accomodate someone who happened to fall in both the fiscal and socially conservative vectors, yet in terms of foreign policy was quite far to the left?

I think that's an important part of the political spectrum, since there are those who are both liberal and conservative who would support differing foreign policies.

First, I'd argue fiscal and social conservatism are incompatable since social conservatives need a big government to enforce their social agenda. Not as big as the welfare statists, but much bigger that the economic conservatives and libertarians. Now, a left wing foreign policy would be prone to trade tariffs and interventionism - rather autocratic policies. Obviously all ideologies would fight wars when attacked, but the left would seek out or create (intentionally or not) enemies to attack. Regarding this aspect of foreign policy, we can see a division between more "traditional" conservatives and "neo-cons" - the former displays a reluctance to go abroad to fight "pre-emptive" wars while the latter looks for opportunities to expand their ideology or at a minimum, head off perceived threats and mold global politics to suit themselves.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Those civil wars wouldn't happen if the damn moderates would take a position.

*points to Columbia or 1917 Russia*

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

incompatable since social conservatives need a big government to enforce their social agenda.

I'm kind of discussing my own perspective here. I'm fiscally conservative in that I do not want my tax dollars spent on unnecessary social programs. Among these would be the current funding here in Canada for abortion services.

I would not support the use of my dollars to fund a particular church or church events, as I feel churches work best apart from the state.

There is more than one way to push a socially conservative agenda, one is through education, not funded by the government, but taken up by private organisations. In this sense, a socially conservative agenda can be advanced without increasing the size of the state.

Now, a left wing foreign policy would be prone to trade tariffs and interventionism - rather autocratic policies.

Yeah, I'm a free trader, so I fall on a conservative platform.

the former displays a reluctance to go abroad to fight "pre-emptive" wars

Interesting. I wonder how a pacifist position could possibly fit into a conservative position? Would this correspond more with the isolationism experienced in the US before the first world war?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only way a linear spectrum can reflect reality is if totalitarianism is at one end and anarchism is at the other.

You should know the reason a linear spectrum of left and right arose in the first place. The French General Assembly had socialists (radicals) sit on the left and monarchists (conservatives) sit on the right. Those that wanted a change to tradition (by revolution if necessary) were leftists and those pro-tradition were rightists ever since then.

And THAT is the linear spectrum of left-right, based on where people are in relation to tradition.

[Berzerker]

*points to Columbia or 1917 Russia*

Places where the moderates...umm...remained moderate while the radicals or extremists had a hissy fit. Consider the American Revolution and Civil War - during the first the country was roughly divided into thirds with one part wanting the rebellion, another third remaining loyal to the crown, and the last third being "moderate". If the moderates took a position, the rebellion would gave quickly failed or succeeded. The Civil War could have been avoided if the moderates took sides. If the moderates, especially in the South, took a stand with the North, the secessionist movement may not have gotten off the ground, and if the moderates on both sides took up the South's cause, Lincoln may not have tried to suppress the movement.

Ben -

There is more than one way to push a socially conservative agenda, one is through education, not funded by the government, but taken up by private organisations. In this sense, a socially conservative agenda can be advanced without increasing the size of the state.

And that is the difference between America's attempts at "temperance". In the 1820's the USA had a very big alcohol problem, but instead of demanding alcohol prohibition, the social (religious) conservatives used persuasion to decrease consumption and their effort was met with great success. The second time around, the social conservatives sought government intervention and their attempt at "temperance" was a disaster and finally repealed. Unfortunately, social conservatism will try to involve government now as a first resort except when the Constitution just cannot be ignored. If there's any way to circumvent the Constitution, liberals and social conservatives will find a way...

Interesting. I wonder how a pacifist position could possibly fit into a conservative position? Would this correspond more with the isolationism experienced in the US before the first world war?

I wouldn't call it "pacifism", just, as you point out, "isolationism".
There's a big difference... But yes, before the world wars the US was quite "isolationist" and that was the tradition begun by the Founding Fathers who sought to break out of the European tradition of monarchies and their constant wars.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

You should know the reason a linear spectrum of left and right arose in the first place. The French General Assembly had socialists (radicals) sit on the left and monarchists (conservatives) sit on the right. Those that wanted a change to tradition (by revolution if necessary) were leftists and those pro-tradition were rightists ever since then.

And THAT is the linear spectrum of left-right, based on where people are in relation to tradition.

Yes, but where people sat in the French assembly has little to do with today's reality. For example, I doubt drug prohibition even existed under the French monarchy and was a break with the tradition of freedom in this country. So, were the prohibitionists left wing and their opponents right wing? And now that prohibition has been ongoing, are the opponents of prohibition left wing and supporters right wing? The linear spectrum makes no sense when left and right change places so easily. Btw, I can think of only 1 member of Congress who opposes drug prohibition and he's a very conservative Republican. Does that mean there are no left wingers in Congress?

[TheStinger]

Interesting that free trade is considered a conservative position. In the 19th century the Tory party in the UK( the forerunner to the conservatives) opposed free trade and the Whigs/liberals were in favour of it. Of course Liberal in the UK does have a slightly different meaning to that in the US as it mainly stresses personal freedom.

Liberals in the UK have tended to be left of the Conservative party, but have until recently not been in favour of big government or socialist policies.( there is an active debate in the Lib Dems at the moment about what their economic policies should be).

[Berzerker]

Liberalism in 19th and 18th century America was more libertarian/conservative. During the mid to latter half of the 20th century many socialists and moderate socialists adopted the liberal label as socialism became taboo. Now that the term liberal has been linked backed to socialism more of them are calling themselves "progressive". I guess names don't matter if you keep getting your ideas adopted by those claiming to be conservative.

There are at least two brands of conservativism, one is for economic conservatism - free traders - and the other is more protectionist and tends to be socially conservative.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
This thread is abomination to politcal science

Best thread ever then.

[Q Classic]

if you go back to it, those philosophers and early political scientists that are called english liberals truly seem to be more libertarian than liberal.

[ricketyclik]

Here's another model, although I do agree with the circle. This one could be extrapolated to a sphere using the same logic. It has a (somewhat loaded and over-simplified) quetionaire to position yourself on it...

www.politicalcompass.org

[chequita guevara]

The problem with the libertarian grid is that their definition of economic freedom is Orwellian in nature.

Slavery is freedom! Freedom is slavery!

[David Floyd]

The problem with the libertarian grid is that their definition of economic freedom is Orwellian in nature.

No, the Libertarian use of the word "freedom" is probably the only usage which correctly captures the definition and meaning of the word.