Definition of Liberal and Conservative

tivo

CAGiversary!
Conservative is defined as "resistant to change"
Liberal is defined as "broad-mindedness"; "tolerant" or "generous and broad sympathies"
But are these definitions aptly applied to today's political groups?

Thomas Sowell Responds:

Among the many words that don't mean what they say, but which too many of us accept as if they did, are those staples of political discussion, "liberals" and "conservatives."

Most liberals are not liberal and most conservatives are not conservative.

The late liberal Professor Tony Judt of New York University gave this definition of liberals: "A liberal is someone who opposes interference in the affairs of others: who is tolerant of dissenting attitudes and unconventional behavior." According to Professor Judt, liberals favor "keeping other people out of our lives, leaving individuals the maximum space in which to live and flourish as they choose."

That is certainly in keeping with the dictionary definition of liberalism and with most contemporary liberals' vision of themselves.

Most of us would probably regard the current administration in Washington-- both the White House and the Congress-- as "liberal," even though the word "progressive" may be more in vogue.

Does the sweeping legislation empowering federal officials to tell doctors, patients, hospitals, and insurance companies what to do, when it comes to medical care, sound like leaving individuals the maximum space to live their lives as they choose?

Communities that have had overwhelmingly liberal elected officials for decades abound in nanny state regulations, micro-managing everything from home-building to garbage collection. San Francisco is a classic example. Among its innumerable micro-managing laws is one recently passed requiring that gas stations must remove the little levers that allow motorists to pump gas into their cars without having to hold the nozzle. [1]

Liberals are usually willing to let people violate the traditional standards of the larger society but crack down on those who dare to violate liberals' own notions and fetishes.

Our academic institutions are overwhelmingly dominated by liberals. They feature speech codes that punish politically incorrect statements. Even to apply to many colleges and universities, students must have spent time as "volunteers" for activities arbitrarily defined by admissions committees as "community service."

As for conservatism, it has no specific political meaning, because everything depends on what you are trying to conserve.

Conservatism, in its original meaning, would require preserving the welfare state and widespread government intervention in the economy.

Liberals often flatter themselves with having the generosity that the word implies.

We are probably stuck with having to use words like liberal and conservative. But we can at least recognize them as nothing more than political flags of convenience. We need not accept these words literally.

[1] - reminded me of the law in Oregon which bans self service at gas stations.


This has been stemming from some time but reemerged on my BS radar when Obama made the recent car analogy about going forward in D and reverse in R. So, like so many other terms which mean one thing but do the other, even these two labels are wrongly defined in public views (especially among today's youth).
 
I think that Mr. Sowell is a little confused about what conservatives are trying to preserve. It isn't the way things currently are, they try to preserve the way things were. Take us back to whatever vision of the past they have.
 
while not a description of political attitudes, liberally applying butter on your potato means there's a lot of butter and conservatively applying butter to your potato means there isn't much butter.

Seemingly, the current view is that a liberal wants the government to be very active in many facets of our daily lives and a conservative basically wants the same but wants to do it on the cheap.
 
True conservatives believe that the role of government is to provide a framework where each individual has the right to achieve as much wealth as their talent and industry allows.

Liberals believe that the role of the government is to ensure that each individual achieves a minimum standard of wealth despite what their talent and industry may allow.
 
That response is straight up bullshit. It's more of the same "blah, blah- Liberals are dumb"

I simply draw the line as such.

Liberals- "What's good for my neighbors is good for me"
Conservative-" What's good for me is good for my neighbors".

As for as not fitting into dictionary definitions- Who the fuck cares.
 
[quote name='tivo']So, like so many other terms which mean one thing but do the other, even these two labels are wrongly defined in public views (especially among today's youth).[/QUOTE]

So to sum up your arguement, WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
 
[quote name='Msut77']To be a conservative is to believe in magic.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/17/republicans-spending-cuts/[/QUOTE]

No, see, the way to fix this country is to cut back our spending. Clearly the biggest money sinks are these programs designed to "help". We need to cut welfare, unemployment, food stamps, social security, medicare and most of the money going to public education. All of these things breed laziness and if these people can't bootstrap themselves up (like I did), they don't deserve any of these things.

Now let me tell you why we need to invade Iran and go back to the moon...
 
I'm also having trouble defining "libertarian."

Initially, I thought it was socially liberal and economically conservative, but there seems to be so much variability among self-identified libertarians. Some don't believe in private property and oppose standing armies which seems closer to anarchism to me. Maybe that can be extreme libertarianism?

I usually like what John Stossel has to say.
Glenn Beck is a self identified Libertarian who wants to privatize everything including at least parts of the military. - an interesting idea.
 
[quote name='tivo']Glenn Beck is a self identified Libertarian who wants to privatize everything including at least parts of the military. - an interesting idea.[/QUOTE]

Yes. There have been many men throughout history who have had "an interesting idea" Maybe you should read some history so you can see how it worked out.
 
Having a completely privatized Military....yeah, I see a Military dictatorship. Not that I dislike the Military but never have we seen good governments coming out of being Military run.
Too examples that easily come to mind are: Augusto Pinoche of Chile and Suharto of Indonesia.

I also think Lynn Samuels summed up the difference between Liberal and Conservative: "Liberals want to get into your cabinets." and then she gave an example of another place where Conservatives would like to get in your business.
 
There are a few private military companies out there and with the withdraw in Iraq, I read somewhere that up to 7000 private security guards and military personnel were going in to different areas to keep the peace. It would make sense to pay a few highly trained specialists who all volunteer for combat for stuff like this instead of committing a large portion of the US military who might not have the same freedom, mobility, personal commitment, equipment, media scrutiny, etc.

Its an interesting idea to increase the number of these contracts and see if privatization could cut costs or perform a better job than the US military in these small areas. If so, we could cut military spending and decrease military personnel while still policing terrorist areas in Africa and the middle east. Don't jump to conclusions too quickly Sarag01.
 
No thanks tivo. I know it's part but since we're talking about it being paid for with people's tax money...no.
This isn't like FedEx(terrible) or UPS(great) where we can actually make a choice.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Having a completely privatized Military....yeah, I see a Military dictatorship. Not that I dislike the Military but never have we seen good governments coming out of being Military run.
Too examples that easily come to mind are: Augusto Pinoche of Chile and Suharto of Indonesia.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, a true privitization would bring nightmares of a different order. I think of middle-ages Italy, when powerful merchant families hired mercenaries to fight their wars. Often times the mercenary armies would sell out to the enemy for a better bid.

When I think of privatization in the modern world, I think of this incident:

Donna Zovko will have to wait to travel to Falluja to see where her son died in one of the Iraq war's most infamous attacks.
...
Tuesday marks five years since her son Jerry Zovko and three other civilian employees of the Blackwater private security firm were ambushed in Falluja on March 31, 2004. Gunmen attacked vehicles holding Zovko, Mike Teague, Wesley Batalona and Scott Helvenston and set the vehicles on fire.
Shocking images beamed around the world showed Iraqis celebrating in front of charred bodies strung up on a bridge over the Euphrates River. The remains were dragged through the streets.
"I didn't realize until way after the incident that he had been decapitated," said Helvenston's mother, Katy Helvenston-Wettengel, from her Florida home. "They cut his heart out. How can anybody be that hateful?"
...
A half-decade after the notorious attack, memories of the gruesome images have faded somewhat from the public eye, as the United States plans to reduce troop numbers in Iraq and a wrongful death suit brought by the four families heads to court-ordered arbitration.
The families accuse Blackwater of failing to prepare the men for their mission that day. A 2007 House oversight committee report concluded that Blackwater "ignored multiple warnings about the dangers" and failed to supply armored vehicles, machine guns, sufficient intelligence or even a map.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-31/...ary_1_blackwater-jerry-zovko-falluja?_s=PM:US

I'd be interested in Tivo's reply. I want to know how his desire to save a buck can possibly justify putting these men in a situation where they were brutally tortured and murdered by the enemy.
 
That's awful. But (not intending to overlook or devalue human life) I'm sure it hurt their business and image and forced them to really step things up in order to keep going and receive contracts. I'd like to see what measures they've taken to improve their performance and prevent such atrocities and negligence and also see if events like that have reoccurred. It would also be interesting to compare this to the measures taken by the US military after similar acts of violence were carried out on US military personnel. Again, I don't want to sound insensitive by looking only at the $ side, but if the private army doesn't consistently do a good job then they're on the street unemployed. Alternatively, if the US army messes up, then maybe a few people get chewed out but nothing is really going to happen. They'll still receive our tax dollars and that's it. No competitors. It's like the border patrol. 500k illegal immigrants get by every year and yet the border patrol still gets our taxes regardless of performance. If that was a few private companies tasked with securing the border, then we'd have companies bid on the job and they would be held responsible. Too many illegals get through and they'd be done. Its simple competition for money that drives private companies to efficiencies and innovation. No competition, no real need for improvement.

Disclaimer: The US army is by far the best program controlled by the government and I support the US need to be the world's largest military power and as such we should continue funding of a large government operated military. Privatization of government programs should start in the social programs (like the DMV) first.
 
[quote name='tivo']That's awful. But (not intending to overlook or devalue human life) I'm sure it hurt their business and image and forced them to really step things up in order to keep going and receive contracts. I'd like to see what measures they've taken to improve their performance and prevent such atrocities and negligence and also see if events like that have reoccurred. It would also be interesting to compare this to the measures taken by the US military after similar acts of violence were carried out on US military personnel. Again, I don't want to sound insensitive by looking only at the $ side, but if the private army doesn't consistently do a good job then they're on the street unemployed. Alternatively, if the US army messes up, then maybe a few people get chewed out but nothing is really going to happen. They'll still receive our tax dollars and that's it. No competitors. It's like the border patrol. 500k illegal immigrants get by every year and yet the border patrol still gets our taxes regardless of performance. If that was a few private companies tasked with securing the border, then we'd have companies bid on the job and they would be held responsible. Too many illegals get through and they'd be done. Its simple competition for money that drives private companies to efficiencies and innovation. No competition, no real need for improvement.

Disclaimer: The US army is by far the best program controlled by the government and I support the US need to be the world's largest military power and as such we should continue funding of a large government operated military. Privatization of government programs should start in the social programs (like the DMV) first.[/QUOTE]

Look no further then the article itself:
Blackwater responded by saying the experienced military veterans on the team "had all of the resources they needed" and were victims of a "well-planned ambush."
In the days after the attack, Blackwater was largely silent beyond a statement that said, "We grieve today for the loss of our colleagues and we pray for their families."

Multi-billion dollar merc outfits don't exactly grow on trees. Blackwater knows that the fed isn't going anywhere and they're taking advantage.

Well Tivo, we agree on something. I guess my position is slightly different - I believe that military operations need to be conducted by US military personnel no matter what. Efficiency doesn't enter it for me. Rising above the moral gymnastics required to put dollars over employee lives, in my mind the potential large-scale dangers of a mostly merc military force are simply too great.
 
bread's done
Back
Top