World, Writing, Wealth discussion

28 views
The Lounge: Chat. Relax. Unwind. > Conservative vs liberal

Comments Showing 1-18 of 18 (18 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (last edited Feb 04, 2017 06:53AM) (new)

Nik Krasno | 12905 comments I know the movements have accumulated a huge baggage of doctrines and worldviews, but can it be rephrased to 'our way' vs 'live and let live' or would it be too simplistic?


message 2: by GR (new)

GR Oliver | 479 comments I'm not sure too sure what you are aiming at. The difference between the two? Or what?

As I see it: Conservative (C) vs Liberal (L) is a catch-all term that doesn't mean anything. What is C? What is L? We all have both.

I hear the Cs calling themselves C, but they act liberally. They don't want restrictions. They say there are too many regulations controlling their interests. To me that's Liberal. President Reagan called himself a C, but deregulated industry. To me that's being L.

Many conservatives say they believe in Ayn Rand, the author of Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Objectivism, but she also said, (not accurate) the more liberal industry becomes, the more restriction should be placed on them, because they can disrupt society.

When it comes down to the individual, everything should be conservative (having restrictions), except for me (liberalism). Is this what you mean?


message 3: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12905 comments GR wrote: "Is this what you mean? ..."

I see now that the OP came out cut for some reason. C - for tradition, national pride and everything 'ours', while L - for assimilation, heterogeneity, equality ?


message 4: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9017 comments Sorry, Nik, but I am with GR. I am not sure what you are aiming at.

For me, L suggests the minimum of regulations, and the right to do what you want, while C suggests a minimum of changes. But then I don't see that everyone would agree with that, and I don't see what the "vs" means, because apart from the fact there have been two parties called C and L respectively, I don't see a huge difference, and I think the terms have changed their meaning somewhat.


message 5: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12905 comments Interesting. You say it's less or more regulations, while I thought (an approach and worldview not parties) coming from different foundations


message 6: by GR (new)

GR Oliver | 479 comments A new term will be added to C and L and that is D. It doesn't mean Donald. It's closer to Autocracy. Maybe that term is closer than D, and will happen in the next coming years. Please don't read between the lines.


message 7: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9017 comments GR, using single spacing certainly discourages reading between the lines.


message 8: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2091 comments GR wrote: "I hear the Cs calling themselves C, but they act liberally. ..."

This is why Republican voters have been revolting against the party for six years. The Tea Party came about because people were sick of the Republicans not fighting for the issues that concerned them. They didn't fight hard enough to keep Obama from expanding government reach through Obamacare, so they voted out many traditional Republicans and voted in a large bloc of Tea Party conservatives. The Party kept straying from traditional issues, breaking promises to conservative voters, so those voters just gave them a giant middle finger by sticking them with Trump as their nominee. It feels like, even after getting stuck with him as their President, the party still hasn't learned. Everything they promised to tackle in Congress, and the only thing they tried to take up was some BS bill meant to weaken the Congressional oversight committee. They vowed to have a repeal of the ACA on Trump's desk on day 1, and here we are three weeks in and they still have no idea what to do about the law. They've been slower to approve Trump's cabinet pics than the two Congresses in place when Bush and Obama both took office. They're starting to grow uneasy with all the executive actions he's signing instead of working with them, and yet have they sent him one piece of legislation to sign? This is a far cry from Gingrich's party which presented voters with the Contract with American, and got right down to work on it. I honestly don't know where conservative voters go next if the Party won't get the message after President Trump...


message 9: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2796 comments J.J. wrote: "GR wrote: "I hear the Cs calling themselves C, but they act liberally. ..."

This is why Republican voters have been revolting against the party for six years. The Tea Party came about because peop..."


Perhaps vote for non-Republicans but I do not know if there are sufficient independent candidates to get on the ticket.

As an aside the UKIP growth in the UK was for similar reasons to the Tea Party i.e. the Conservatives not responding. Now the biggest impact may be on the traditional Labour Party. It's an influence on Parliament only (one M.P) but in local government they have considerable standing.

There are similarities in movements across the world against the political elite from the Arab Spring to the current demonstrations in Romania. Generally I sense a lot of dissatisfaction with any political leadership.


message 10: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12905 comments Philip wrote: "Generally I sense a lot of dissatisfaction with any political leadership. ..."

Except for Putin, who has 90 or close to it % support -:)


message 11: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9017 comments Putin has the advantage that Russians think their lives are improving. In many countries in the West, there are a large number who feel things are getting worse, thanks to the exporting of jobs and the hollowing out of the middle class. It is the consequence of trickle down economics, which actually mean "flood up", in my opinion. The is huge inequality in Russia too, but it was set in place under Yeltsin, so Putin gains merely by this not getting any worse.


message 12: by Ian (new)

Ian Bott (iansbott) | 209 comments Nik wrote: "I know the movements have accumulated a huge baggage of doctrines and worldviews, but can it be rephrased to 'our way' vs 'live and let live' or would it be too simplistic?"

Going back to the OP, I'd like to throw a few thoughts in.

Firstly, in discussions on things like this it's important to remember that the names adopted by political movements are best regarded as arbitrary labels. They bear little relationship to the everyday definitions and usage of the words. So "Conservative" and "Liberal" means whatever that party has come to stand for, unrelated to anything in the dictionary.

Secondly, the meanings and what various parties stand for is different from country to country. Yes, there are often similar themes around the world but you really need to live in a country to fully appreciate both the party viewpoints and what they mean to citizens there.

To get back to Nik's questions about rephrasing, I think that is way too simplistic. There probably is a fairly simple way to rephrase the terms but that may come out differently in each country. I think you need to look at where the "geological fault lines" break society into major divisions to understand that country's parties.

Back in Britain, for example, the traditional parties of Conservative and Labour are rooted in social class. Conservative was essentially the party of the upper and middle class - traditionalists, preserving the status quo. Labour was the party representing the working class, with a strong affinity for revolution. Both are fundamentally "our way" and neither is really "live & let live" in any common-sense freedom-loving way. The British Liberals grew up as a middle option against the tyrannies of either extreme.

It seems to me that Republicans and Democrats divide the country along rather different lines, but as an outsider it's hard to get a true sense of them. All I can say is that they both seem to appeal both to their own elites and to their own support in poorer parts of the population, which suggests they are polarizing along profoundly different lines from the British parties.


message 13: by GR (new)

GR Oliver | 479 comments Ian wrote: "Nik wrote: "I know the movements have accumulated a huge baggage of doctrines and worldviews, but can it be rephrased to 'our way' vs 'live and let live' or would it be too simplistic?"

Going back..."


Your second statement: You are right about C & L having different meanings in different countries. The Conservative Party in Germany is the CSU (Bavarian member party of the CDU) is the Christian Socialist Union, and the SDP, in fact, are anything but liberal. The only liberal parties of Germany, as I see, are the Green Party, and the Die Linke (the Left). The parties of Germany grew out of dissatisfaction with the standing majority parties.

The parties in the States are divided among traditional lines, not so much C or L. This is why I'm confused when they say they are C or L, when they are anything but. The party philosophy doesn't mean anything. It is what has been traditional over the years. Most people don't understand what C or L mean, they just follow the tradition of the party. My family has always been Republican, because they came from a Republican dominated state. But my father was anything but a Republican. He leaned more to a socialist point of view.


message 14: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2091 comments Philip wrote: "J.J. wrote: "GR wrote: "I hear the Cs calling themselves C, but they act liberally. ..."

This is why Republican voters have been revolting against the party for six years. The Tea Party came about..."


That's part of the problem with a 2-party system, is that there is no alternative candidate with similar views. The alternative is to get involved in the primaries and unseat the party candidate with another party candidate, but the thing is you almost always get someone who continues the same problems you had with the original candidate.

What I don't get are die-hard party voters who vote for the other party when they hate their candidate. If you don't like your candidate, why on earth would you vote for the other guy who holds the exact opposite views you do? This question doesn't apply to those in the middle, the unaffiliated, but to loyal Democrats and Republicans.


message 15: by GR (last edited Feb 11, 2017 12:54AM) (new)

GR Oliver | 479 comments J.J. wrote: "Philip wrote: "J.J. wrote: "GR wrote: "I hear the Cs calling themselves C, but they act liberally. ..."

This is why Republican voters have been revolting against the party for six years. The Tea P..."


I agree. There should be a system (like Germany), if the winning party doesn't have a majority, they have to accept another party to gain a majority. Much like the Greens and SDU formed a coalition before Merkel took power.

Or, a ruling party must take in a minor party to complete the election. I'm not sure, but I think Isreal has that system. Somebody tell me.


message 16: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2091 comments GR wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Philip wrote: "J.J. wrote: "GR wrote: "I hear the Cs calling themselves C, but they act liberally. ..."

This is why Republican voters have been revolting against the party for six yea..."


Initially, our system was set up so that a simple majority could not lead...the senate gave equal representation to each state regardless of population so that that smaller states would not get shut out of the process at every step, and the House gave states a disproportionate voice based on population so that everyone would have an equal voice in one spot of government. The filibuster rules in the Senate are there to make sure the minority party can wield influence when they don't have the votes to block legislation. And people complain about the gridlock in Washington and how slow legislation moves, but our system was created that way to stop lawmakers from the ruling party from pushing through legislation without input from the minority party.

While I can appreciate the protests we're seeing today when it comes to specific Trump policy, but this attitude that we need to change the system because a few people are unhappy with the election results, well that scares me as much as Harry Reid's decision to eliminate the 60 vote threshold a few years back for approving federal judges, and as much as the discussion of doing the same for Supreme Court nominations now.

Just think, if we were a country of simply majority rule without the checks and balances our Founding Fathers installed, we would still have Jim Crow segregation laws today. The issue of letting men in the women's restroom or vice versa wouldn't be going on today because we would still have "white-only" and "colored-only" bathrooms in some states.

Our system is actually a lot better than we give it credit for, the problem is we hate our politicians so much, we're taking it out on the system itself. Instead of changing our attitudes to how we choose our politicians, many are attacking the system, claiming it's broken and needs to be changed.


message 17: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 12905 comments GR wrote: "Or, a ruling party must take in a minor party to complete the election. I'm not sure, but I think Israel has that system. Somebody tell me. ..."

Yeah, need to form and maintain a coalition of a few parties to attain majority in the parliament to be able to appoint the government. Can happen that a party having most seats still won't be able to form a coalition...


message 18: by Leonie (new)

Leonie (leonierogers) | 1579 comments J.J. wrote: "Philip wrote: "J.J. wrote: "GR wrote: "I hear the Cs calling themselves C, but they act liberally. ..."

This is why Republican voters have been revolting against the party for six years. The Tea P..."


As JJ said, the terms 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' mean different things in different countries.

Here in Australia, our Liberal Party is most definitely 'conservative,' or right leaning - but some parts of it are more right leaning than others. Theoretically, our Labor Party is leftish leaning, but really sits in the centre - but only sort of.

One of our more left leaning parties is the Greens Party.

Although we have been primarily a two party system, there have always been minor parties who have a substantial presence in the political arena. The Nationals (rural based conservative) have traditionally formed a coalition government with the Liberal Party, and the Greens have gradually attracted a larger following over the last few years.

Our senate often has minor party representation.


back to top