What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Conservative Or Liberal - What Do You Think People Think Of? (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
My Buddy @Maurile Tremblay said he thought Republicans might be socially conservative these days but didn't see much fiscal or economical conservatism from them.

I think that's an interesting point. I wonder what most people think they hear the words politically Conservative or Liberal.

I don't think in terms of social, fiscal or economical. I think more in terms of size and role of government.

I think Conservatives want less government intervention in their business and less restrictions. I think they want more independence from government as far as how they do business. I think they look for government to answer only the big things they can't handle on their own. I think there's less of a thought for "others" and assisting the poor.

I think Liberals want more government regulation and oversight. I think they're less worried about independence from government. And may actually desire more government involvement. I think they more quickly look for government to be the answer for things. I think there is likely more thought for "others" and assisting the poor. 

I guess there are elements of social, fiscal and economics in all those. But for me, I think it's largely about size and role of government. 

What do you think? What do you think most people think?

 
Da Guru said:
Indifferent.

Basically have developed distain for both parties and really do not care for the road this country is headed down.   I really feel more people including myself are centrist in views than hard left or right.
Click to expand...
Understood. But this isn't whether you care for the road they're taking.

Are you saying the words Liberal or Conservative don't have any meaning? 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Understood. But this isn't whether you care for the road they're taking.

Are you saying the words Liberal or Conservative don't have any meaning? 
Click to expand...
I think the original meaning of what I used to think about both has been lost. 

Liberalism used to mean  freedom, negative or positive if you’re a classical or modern liberal respectively.

It advocates small controlled government, enabling, again for classical or modern liberals respectively. Liberal concepts include separation of church and state, bill of rights, constitutionalism, elected government based on consent of the governed, legislature and more. The core principles of liberalism are fixed and can never change, otherwise it stops being liberalism.

Conservatism is different, because it is about conserving the status quo as long as there are no compelling reasons for radical change. They have respect for tradition, and believe that social order and security are the most basic human needs. Order is seen more important than ideas such as freedom, rights, equality etc.

While liberalism is universal and is the same in every country at all times, conservatism is adapted according to the country you are. If you are in a socialist country, a conservative would be lean left and would want to maintain socialism, and if you’re in a right wing country, conservatives would want to maintain that and lean right. For instance, Stalinism can be seen as a conservative form of communism.

Every country (its citizens rather) in the world that deals with ideologies knows these, except the US, where for some reason they confuse liberalism with socialism, literally the most opposing ideologies.

 
Joe Bryant said:
What do you think? 
Click to expand...
IMO Conservative means someone that's trying to conserve power for the people who already have it.  It's the single axis you can tie support for Corporations, Religion, Nationalists, Whites, the Wealthy and etc together with.

Liberalism is generally trying to take power away from those power centers -- or at the very least spread it.  Affirmative Action, corporate regulation, taxation of the wealthy, secularism, consumer protection, etc.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I don't think in terms of social, fiscal or economical. I think more in terms of size and role of government.
Click to expand...
IIRC you are a bit younger than me, but I was a non-traditional student, starting university after working in the family business for a spell and serving 6 years in the USN.

What you offered was the classical academic definition of what differentiates Ds from Rs. It may have been true thirty years ago; it most certainly is not today, nor has it been for some time. Whether expanding entitlements and social services or ramping up the military-industrial complex, both sides of the aisle are equally adept at running up staggering deficits.

What they share in common, in my worldview, is to maintain the status quo and their own individual power. Above. All. Else.

I thought as I got older I would become mellower and go with the flow more often. In some ways I have grown in wisdom over the decades and find it easier to let things go; being right isn't the most important thing. But when it comes to the US Government and our traditional two-party system, I have become disillusioned and have no faith in either party to actually solve problems. I find I am favoring disruption, radical change, even revolution - anything except more of the same.

Liberal or conservative don't have much meaning to me personally anymore. I just want to know if a pol is establishment or radical, and if it's the latter, I'd like to hear what they have to say. I would love to see socialism become mainstream. Barring that, let's see how bad the fascists can screw things up.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think Conservatives want less government intervention in their business and less restrictions. I
Click to expand...
Well of course, that’s why they support a guy with draconian tariffs, a trillion dollar plus deficit, who seizes private property, who ignores the appropriations clause, and does things like condition regulation and government funds on constitutionally protected speech by executive order.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't put much thought into it - but if I did - I think "Conservative" and "liberal" in the Trump Era generally refer to social issues.

Economic conservatives are a dying breed - everyone loves to spend government money these days, the only difference is how the money is spent.

 
Well, today conservative = trump supporter if you ask this board.

Personally conservative to me has always been measured/limited social programs, concern with deficit spending, "government stay out of my pockets", the level of charity in this country is always best met by individuals etc.

Clearly that isn't the case anymore.  That ship has sailed and I don't think it comes back for a long time, if ever.  Like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

 
Da Guru said:
I think the original meaning of what I used to think about both has been lost. 

Liberalism used to mean  freedom, negative or positive if you’re a classical or modern liberal respectively.

It advocates small controlled government, enabling, again for classical or modern liberals respectively. Liberal concepts include separation of church and state, bill of rights, constitutionalism, elected government based on consent of the governed, legislature and more. The core principles of liberalism are fixed and can never change, otherwise it stops being liberalism.

Conservatism is different, because it is about conserving the status quo as long as there are no compelling reasons for radical change. They have respect for tradition, and believe that social order and security are the most basic human needs. Order is seen more important than ideas such as freedom, rights, equality etc.

While liberalism is universal and is the same in every country at all times, conservatism is adapted according to the country you are. If you are in a socialist country, a conservative would be lean left and would want to maintain socialism, and if you’re in a right wing country, conservatives would want to maintain that and lean right. For instance, Stalinism can be seen as a conservative form of communism.

Every country (its citizens rather) in the world that deals with ideologies knows these, except the US, where for some reason they confuse liberalism with socialism, literally the most opposing ideologies.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks. I'd never thought of it in those terms in that way. Thanks for sharing. 

 
To me it’s about change.  

Liberals want things to be different. Quickly, emphatically and with the help of government.

Conservatives want things to stay as they have been.  They don’t want government butting in and mucking things up.

There are exceptions to this but it’s largely true.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
My Buddy @Maurile Tremblay said he thought Republicans might be socially conservative these days but didn't see much fiscal or economical conservatism from them.

I think that's an interesting point. I wonder what most people think they hear the words politically Conservative or Liberal.

I don't think in terms of social, fiscal or economical. I think more in terms of size and role of government.

I think Conservatives want less government intervention in their business and less restrictions. I think they want more independence from government as far as how they do business. I think they look for government to answer only the big things they can't handle on their own. I think there's less of a thought for "others" and assisting the poor.

I think Liberals want more government regulation and oversight. I think they're less worried about independence from government. And may actually desire more government involvement. I think they more quickly look for government to be the answer for things. I think there is likely more thought for "others" and assisting the poor. 

I guess there are elements of social, fiscal and economics in all those. But for me, I think it's largely about size and role of government. 

What do you think? What do you think most people think?
Click to expand...
These were generally true for decades. Conservatives (read Trump-led GOP) have largely strayed from this and toward protectionism, nationalism, thinly veiled racism and anti-pluralism. 

Liberals (read postmodern progressivism) have kept their belief that govt intervention is largely good, but have focused this on identity politics and trying to force equal outcomes (vs fairness of rules/laws). 

IMO the conservatives have strayed much farther from their historic platforms than the liberals have. 

In general I now tend to look more favorably on liberals than conservatives (after spending the first 15 years of my politically aware teens/20s as a conservative). I fear that conservatives’ anti globalist and largely anti science stance could significantly harm our future given the insane rate of change that technology and specifically automation/AI will bring. We have to have an open-minded stance toward the traditional free market controls that have served us just fine since the industrial revolution. 

 
BobbyLayne said:
IIRC you are a bit younger than me, but I was a non-traditional student, starting university after working in the family business for a spell and serving 6 years in the USN.

What you offered was the classical academic definition of what differentiates Ds from Rs. It may have been true thirty years ago; it most certainly is not today, nor has it been for some time. Whether expanding entitlements and social services or ramping up the military-industrial complex, both sides of the aisle are equally adept at running up staggering deficits.

What they share in common, in my worldview, is to maintain the status quo and their own individual power. Above. All. Else.

I thought as I got older I would become mellower and go with the flow more often. In some ways I have grown in wisdom over the decades and find it easier to let things go; being right isn't the most important thing. But when it comes to the US Government and our traditional two-party system, I have become disillusioned and have no faith in either party to actually solve problems. I find I am favoring disruption, radical change, even revolution - anything except more of the same.

Liberal or conservative don't have much meaning to me personally anymore. I just want to know if a pol is establishment or radical, and if it's the latter, I'd like to hear what they have to say. I would love to see socialism become mainstream. Barring that, let's see how bad the fascists can screw things up.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing.

I'd be interested to hear more about why you desire this "radical change". And specifically what kind of results you'd be hoping to see. "Radical change" is pretty open. What type of changes in what areas and changes to what?

 
I think the vast majority of people would be conservative by the definition in the OP if people could be trusted to do the right thing.

Unfortunately that’s not the case.  

 
I think decades ago, conservative or liberal would've had more rooting in views of government, or some ideologically focused values on how they think the government should be run.

I think in general, liberals these days can be more associated by what they're for than what they're against.

Conservatives on the other hand, at least the further right you go, it's more of an identification with folks and things they oppose.  Opposition to abortion, opposition to welfare, opposition to "nanny state", opposition to open borders, opposition to expanded medicaid/medicare.  Decades ago I'd have supposed they were anti-deficits, pro-small government, pro "shinig city on a hill" -  but it seems clear based on the past few years that they only care about deficits if the democrats are in power, as the latest republican tax breaks have vastly increased the deficits and you hear almost nothing on the conservative side about this.

I think you have liberals, who are more or less what they have been for a while and who favor helping everyone, trying to level the playing field, healthcare for all, improvements across the country...you have the "never trumps" who seem to be a small contingent of true conservatives who have conservative "small government", "constitutional democracy", "small deficits"...etc as part of their DNA and will speak out against republican leaders if they go agains that...and then you have "conservatives" who occupy most of the republican party these days who are self-identified conservatives mainly based on who or what they oppose.  The most ardent Trump supporters are to be found here, and they've completely lost any grounding in their views, and have replaced it with whatever Trump says is true.

I know this seems like a huge GOP/Trump bashing post, but that's not the intent.  I truly feel that the liberals are largely what they have been.  A group of true conservatives who have values and views that are grounded in principle and theory, which are a minority and outcasts from today's GOP.  And then you have the rest of the "conservatives" who are largely just GOP team members looking to score points for GOP causes, irrespective of whether a given action was bashed (such as rising deficits) when democrats/liberals were in charge.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
I don't put much thought into it - but if I did - I think "Conservative" and "liberal" in the Trump Era generally refer to social issues.

Economic conservatives are a dying breed - everyone loves to spend government money these days, the only difference is how the money is spent.
Click to expand...
Isn't this a myth that conservatives were ever into not spending money? W spent an unbelieable amount of wars and Medicare expansion. Reagan spent a truckload on the DoD, like Nixon before him. I guess are we talking about prior to Eisenhower? But then the Herbert Hoover America is not the America we know today.

 
As I wrote in the other thread, I think these terms as we’ve traditionally known them are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the 21st Century. 

 
Conservatives do not have a coherent ethos anymore, they are for states rights for things they like and against states rights for things they don't like. They are for a balanced budget when they are not in office and don't care about ballooning the deficit when they are in office. It is more being a sports fan at this point, and just having your team win.

 
I think everybody is overthinking this, though I think Da Guru did the best job in his academic assessment of the labels. 

But it's generally...

this

 
The Commish said:
Well, today conservative = trump supporter if you ask this board.

Personally conservative to me has always been measured/limited social programs, concern with deficit spending, "government stay out of my pockets", the level of charity in this country is always best met by individuals etc.

Clearly that isn't the case anymore.  That ship has sailed and I don't think it comes back for a long time, if ever.  Like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
Click to expand...
I agree in the PSF that is true. In day to day life that is so untrue.

 
Joe Bryant said:
BobbyLayne said:
IIRC you are a bit younger than me, but I was a non-traditional student, starting university after working in the family business for a spell and serving 6 years in the USN.

What you offered was the classical academic definition of what differentiates Ds from Rs. It may have been true thirty years ago; it most certainly is not today, nor has it been for some time. Whether expanding entitlements and social services or ramping up the military-industrial complex, both sides of the aisle are equally adept at running up staggering deficits.

What they share in common, in my worldview, is to maintain the status quo and their own individual power. Above. All. Else.

I thought as I got older I would become mellower and go with the flow more often. In some ways I have grown in wisdom over the decades and find it easier to let things go; being right isn't the most important thing. But when it comes to the US Government and our traditional two-party system, I have become disillusioned and have no faith in either party to actually solve problems. I find I am favoring disruption, radical change, even revolution - anything except more of the same.

Liberal or conservative don't have much meaning to me personally anymore. I just want to know if a pol is establishment or radical, and if it's the latter, I'd like to hear what they have to say. I would love to see socialism become mainstream. Barring that, let's see how bad the fascists can screw things up.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing.

I'd be interested to hear more about why you desire this "radical change". And specifically what kind of results you'd be hoping to see. "Radical change" is pretty open. What type of changes in what areas and changes to what?
Click to expand...
I'm at the tail end of a 18 hour day volunteering, but BIG, medicaid for all, and alternative energy (least >> most) are three things I would like to see in my lifetime. With respect to the latter, I think electric cars are amazingly fun to drive and I would love to see the grid maximize solar and wind where feasible. 

 
Da Guru said:
I agree in the PSF that is true. In day to day life that is so untrue.
Click to expand...
I hope this is correct.  Actual conservatives seem to be a dying breed and the GOP certainly isn't analogous with what I said any longer.  There are a lot of people waking up every day realizing they have no party.

 
BobbyLayne said:
I'm at the tail end of a 18 hour day volunteering, but BIG, medicaid for all, and alternative energy (least >> most) are three things I would like to see in my lifetime. With respect to the latter, I think electric cars are amazingly fun to drive and I would love to see the grid maximize solar and wind where feasible. 
Click to expand...
Thanks. When you have more time (and energy!) I'd love to hear details. I know you're a thoughtful guy. I sometimes root for just any radical change or chaos when it's something trivial like the College Football Playoff system. Rooting for just any radical change or chaos for my government feels like an entirely different thing. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks. When you have more time (and energy!) I'd love to hear details. I know you're a thoughtful guy. I sometimes root for just any radical change or chaos when it's something trivial like the College Football Playoff system. Rooting for just any radical change or chaos for my government feels like an entirely different thing. 
Click to expand...
Is significant election reform or medicare for all a radical change that concerns you?

 
roadkill1292 said:
Is significant election reform or medicare for all a radical change that concerns you?
Click to expand...
What I questioned was him saying he was just for radical change with little detail on what that meant. Maybe I read him wrong but I thought he was saying, "I just want radical change from either side". When I hear that, I want to know a lot more about what kind of changes he was thinking. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
For sure. I don't mean this to be a "is Trump conservative?" or "look at the hypocrisy of people who support Trump" thing. I was way more interested in general definitions and how most people see them. More that and less "gotcha" type stuff. 
Click to expand...
I'm talking about self-defining conservatives themselves. And it's definitely not a hypocrisy point on my part, I almost never use the word. My point is those people supporting him are no longer actually conservatives.

I think there's a debate about whether it's 'conservatives are as conservatives do', or 'conservatism is a set of ideas'. I am of the latter opinion. Trump is basically turning conservatives into nationalists at best and nihilists at worst (IMO). That is, yes it's a set of ideas with a specific definition and people who think they are that are in fact no longer that.

eta - And I don't do 'gotcha'.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
What I questioned was him saying he was just for radical change with little detail on what that meant. Maybe I read him wrong but I thought he was saying, "I just want radical change from either side". When I hear that, I want to know a lot more about what kind of changes he was thinking. 
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm extra thick today but I'm still not getting what you're looking for. I don't think it's controversial to say that many progressives espouse big changes in the way government functions and runs the country. I also don't think it's unfair to say that once they've achieved majority power at the top levels of government, that lib/progs sometimes become quickly reluctant to upset the systemic applecart. For example, new ideas like eliminating first past the post voting and proportional representation (ones that I like and ones that even some conservatives used to like) generate lots of enthusiasm until the entrenched system actually rewards liberals with electoral victory.

 
While there are always exceptions that prove the rule I think in 2019 that 

Conservatism is based around the belief that if every individual acts in their own self interest that the interest of society as a whole are ultimately best served.

Liberalism is based around the belief that if every individual acts in the best interest of society that their own self interest will be ultimately best served.

I think that while the issues and even the implementation of these beliefs change over time that ultimately these ideas remain pretty constant even if some of the original meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" is gone.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm talking about self-defining conservatives themselves. And it's definitely not a hypocrisy point on my part, I almost never use the word. My point is those people supporting him are no longer actually conservatives.

I think there's a debate about whether it's 'conservatives are as conservatives do', or 'conservatism is a set of ideas'. I am of the latter opinion. Trump is basically turning conservatives into nationalists at best and nihilists at worst (IMO). That is, yes it's a set of ideas with a specific definition and people who think they are that are in fact no longer that.

eta - And I don't do 'gotcha'.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That's what I'm talking about as well. I'd love to have the conversation on how people see definitions. But as I expected, it'll turn mostly to Trump and people who support him. It's fine. That's life today. 

 
roadkill1292 said:
Maybe I'm extra thick today but I'm still not getting what you're looking for. I don't think it's controversial to say that many progressives espouse big changes in the way government functions and runs the country. I also don't think it's unfair to say that once they've achieved majority power at the top levels of government, that lib/progs sometimes become quickly reluctant to upset the systemic applecart. For example, new ideas like eliminating first past the post voting and proportional representation (ones that I like and ones that even some conservatives used to like) generate lots of enthusiasm until the entrenched system actually rewards liberals with electoral victory.
Click to expand...
Bobbylayne said, "I thought as I got older I would become mellower and go with the flow more often. In some ways I have grown in wisdom over the decades and find it easier to let things go; being right isn't the most important thing. But when it comes to the US Government and our traditional two-party system, I have become disillusioned and have no faith in either party to actually solve problems. I find I am favoring disruption, radical change, even revolution - anything except more of the same."

I understood this he was looking just for disruption or radical change or even revolution. Anything other than more of the same. That's why I asked what specifically he was looking for. Because I'm not in favor of just any radical change. I'd rather know more specifically what he's talking about with details more than "I would love to see socialism become mainstream". That's really it. Not at all trying to argue. Just trying to make sure I understand him clearly. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks. That's what I'm talking about as well. I'd love to have the conversation on how people see definitions. But as I expected, it'll turn mostly to Trump and people who support him. It's fine. That's life today. 
Click to expand...
Joe, thanks as well. I have friends and family who consider themselves conservatives so I feel perfectly comfortable having this conversation. Try these points:

  • Do you fully support the Constitution? If so then you're a conservative.
  • Do you support near balanced spending? If so then you're a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should be able to usurp the spending power of Congress? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should be able to usurp the Congress' power over immigration? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should be able to intrude in the regulation of businesses? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should be able to interfere in the day to day execution of our criminal laws? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should seek to limit free speech or freedom of the press or seek to regulate freedom of speech? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think politicians should be judged as qualified partly on their personal morals? If not then you're not a conservative.
Etc.

Just talk solely in terms of conservative values. Leave You Know Who out of it entirely. However almost all of what conservatives, liberals, progressives and nationalists differ on is power of the presidency vs Congress and adherence to the Constitution in doing that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Joe, thanks as well. I have friends and family who consider themselves conservatives so I feel perfectly comfortable having this conversation. Try these points:

  • Do you fully support the Constitution? If so then you're a conservative.
  • Do you support near balanced spending? If so then you're a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should be able to usurp the spending power of Congress? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should be able to usurp the Congress' power over immigration? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should be able to intrude in the regulation of businesses? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should be able to interfere in the day to day execution of our criminal laws? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think a president should seek to limit free speech or freedom of the press or seek to regulate freedom of speech? If so then you're not a conservative.
  • Do you think politicians should be judged as qualified partly on their personal morals? If not then you're not a conservative.
Etc.

Just talk solely in terms of conservative values. Leave You Know Who out of it entirely. However almost all of what conservatives, liberals, progressives and nationalists differ on is power of the presidency vs Congress and adherence to the Constitution in doing that.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Those are the kind of things I'm asking about. Thanks. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
BobbyLayne said:
I'm at the tail end of a 18 hour day volunteering, but BIG, medicaid for all, and alternative energy (least >> most) are three things I would like to see in my lifetime. With respect to the latter, I think electric cars are amazingly fun to drive and I would love to see the grid maximize solar and wind where feasible. 
Click to expand...
Thanks. When you have more time (and energy!) I'd love to hear details. I know you're a thoughtful guy. I sometimes root for just any radical change or chaos when it's something trivial like the College Football Playoff system. Rooting for just any radical change or chaos for my government feels like an entirely different thing. 
Click to expand...
A lot my general disillusionment with the government is my dissatisfaction with laissez faire capitalism in general. I grew up in an era when corporations took their role as being community leaders and good citizens a little more seriously. It feels like everything that could be good or altruistic has been sacrificed at the altar of globalism. 

It isn't just that the invisible hand doesn't do an adequate job of caring for the needy and the most vulnerable members of society, though. Consumerism and wealth accumulation are lousy idols. They will never satisfy ("lemme find that out for myself!" is a valid counterpoint lol.) We have a couple deca-millionaires (one recently deceased) in my family and I can say from first hand experience that greed is not good.

Individuals would be far more satisfied devoting a good portion of their time helping others and tithing their income to nonprofits. So basically I'm not espousing government solutions but rather wishing for a utopian change to a more generous and selfless society.

Jefferson said a little revolution once in awhile is a healthy component of democracy. Let's see if he was right.  :P

(actually let's put that lifted quote into context....it comes from a letter to James Madison, while TF was serving as the American envoy in Paris during the American Revolutionary War.)

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions indeed generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't really matter what they were in the past politically because they are nothing like they were in the pre-Reagan era.

How I view it now:

Conservatives (R) Party/Donors over Country/People

Liberals (D) - the reverse.

 
BobbyLayne said:
A lot my general disillusionment with the government is my dissatisfaction with laissez faire capitalism in general. I grew up in an era when corporations took their role as being community leaders and good citizens a little more seriously. It feels like everything that could be good or altruistic has been sacrificed at the altar of globalism. 

It isn't just that the invisible hand doesn't do an adequate job of caring for the needy and the most vulnerable members of society, though. Consumerism and wealth accumulation are lousy idols. They will never satisfy ("lemme find that out for myself!" is a valid counterpoint lol.) We have a couple deca-millionaires (one recently deceased) in my family and I can say from first hand experience that greed is not good.

Individuals would be far more satisfied devoting a good portion of their time helping others and tithing their income to nonprofits. So basically I'm not espousing government solutions but rather wishing for a utopian change to a more generous and selfless society.

Jefferson said a little revolution once in awhile is a healthy component of democracy. Let's see if he was right.  :P

(actually let's put that lifted quote into context....it comes from a letter to James Madison, while TF was serving as the American envoy in Paris during the American Revolutionary War.)
Click to expand...
Thank you.

 
Joe Bryant said:
My Buddy @Maurile Tremblay said he thought Republicans might be socially conservative these days but didn't see much fiscal or economical conservatism from them.

I think that's an interesting point. I wonder what most people think they hear the words politically Conservative or Liberal.

I don't think in terms of social, fiscal or economical. I think more in terms of size and role of government.

I think Conservatives want less government intervention in their business and less restrictions. I think they want more independence from government as far as how they do business. I think they look for government to answer only the big things they can't handle on their own. I think there's less of a thought for "others" and assisting the poor.

I think Liberals want more government regulation and oversight. I think they're less worried about independence from government. And may actually desire more government involvement. I think they more quickly look for government to be the answer for things. I think there is likely more thought for "others" and assisting the poor. 

I guess there are elements of social, fiscal and economics in all those. But for me, I think it's largely about size and role of government. 

What do you think? What do you think most people think?
Click to expand...
This is mainly why I left the Republican party. If neither party is particularly fiscally responsible, I may as well support helpful social policies. 

 
I see it more as core party values

Democrats - anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-taxation, pro-big Govt, anti-capitalism .... they favor massive social programs instead of personal responsibility,  they favor no border control, they favor legalized drugs, they favor schools teaching kids sex, politics and religion. They favor making it super easy for anyone to vote and eliminating EC. Demcorats push that people who are white are privileged and people who are not are victims, women are still held down and men are the root cause.

Republicans - pro-gun, pro-life, less-taxation, less Govt, capitalism, less social programs=people need to be more responsible. They favor strict border control, come here legally please. They don't favor legalized drugs for everyone to blow their minds on, and they don't favor schools teaching things that need taught at home. They favor making voting a thing US citizens only should do, and if an hour is too much time for you to spend on voting, the problem isn't the system, its yourself. GOP tries to treat everyone equally and fairly regardless of skin color or male/female.  They've even come around on LGBT

just an overview, we can add a lot more

 
Conservatives - favor big government for their pet issues, yet tell us how they are for smaller govt.  like to increase spending while lowering taxes resulting in massive deficits, yet preach about how they are fiscally responsible.  pass legislation against drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, and gambling yet preach about how the government should stay out of our lives.  against gun control legislation of any kind while taking massive amounts of money from the NRA.  for eliminating regulations on corporations while taking massive amounts of money from corporations.  pass legislation raising the estate tax limit while taking massive amounts of money from rich people.  mostly science deniers.  Generally speaking, don't like anything that strays from the norm of white, straight, Christian people.

Liberals - support a better safety net for all American citizens.  view healthcare as a right.  for higher taxes to offset these things.  support things like gay marriage and MJ legalization.  for a solution to our wealth inequality problem.  support regulations that would help our environment.  

 
I'll tell you what:  appointing a climate change denier to head up the EPA is definitely not something any liberal would agree with.

As has been stated eloquently here already, fiscal conservatism is basically extinct.  Trump is blowing the roof of spending while simultaneously drastically reducing the government take because of his tax cuts for the rich.  This will catch up to him eventually, just in time to pass the house of fire to whomever is going to come in and clean up the mess.  Sort of like what Bush left Obama.

Social conservatism is alive and well, almost morphing into this hybrid coinservo-nationalism/protectionism.

Liberal values seem, for the most part, to have remained the same in the underlying factors that drive them, but are becoming more progressive (radical?) on the ground. 

For me, one of the big attractions to  liberalism is the belief that the government must check the capitalist system through regulation.  Because, left to their own devices, corporations will extract maximum profit through the path of least resistance, carnage left behind be damned.  One thing that doesn't get enough run as it should in news or online is the gutting of regulations that has been done by the Trump administration.  Lots of good reading out there on it.  Protecting habitat, endangered animals, sources of clean water are just some enviro ones.  Then you have the banking de regs which will allow the wolves back into the henhouse again.  Looks good on a balance sheet, but serious harm is done when capitalism isn't checked.

I live in Canada (the most conservative province) and all of this deregulation would be a non-starter.  We need to ensure corporations aren't raping and pillaging the country's resources.  And I am good with that.  Tighter controls on the mining and harvesting of geological materials is a good thing.  I still support the harvesting of these materials, but I certainly do not trust big oil to regulate itself in how it does so.  Because we all know they wouldn't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem dealing with wealth inequality is tinkering with income tax is never going to touch the few thousand families that control the bulk of the wealth.  We might get closer with a higher capital gains tax, but even that is going to be minimal.

Democratic politicians can easily satisfy their constituents with an income tax increase and avoid drawing the ire of their big donors.  There’s no reason for them not to take the easy route.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Liberal isn't the converse of conservative. Conservatives want to conserve, or keep things generally as they are. Progressives want to progress, or generally move things forward. We are progressives or conservatives on issues. It's rare someone is a C or P acroas the board.  For example, I'm a progressive on health care and a conservative on fiscal matters. I realize I'm not answering the question, as originally stated. But I hope I've added something to the conversation. 

 
Stealthycat said:
I see it more as core party values

Democrats - anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-taxation, pro-big Govt, anti-capitalism .... they favor massive social programs instead of personal responsibility,  they favor no border control, they favor legalized drugs, they favor schools teaching kids sex, politics and religion. They favor making it super easy for anyone to vote and eliminating EC. Demcorats push that people who are white are privileged and people who are not are victims, women are still held down and men are the root cause.

Republicans - pro-gun, pro-life, less-taxation, less Govt, capitalism, less social programs=people need to be more responsible. They favor strict border control, come here legally please. They don't favor legalized drugs for everyone to blow their minds on, and they don't favor schools teaching things that need taught at home. They favor making voting a thing US citizens only should do, and if an hour is too much time for you to spend on voting, the problem isn't the system, its yourself. GOP tries to treat everyone equally and fairly regardless of skin color or male/female.  They've even come around on LGBT

just an overview, we can add a lot more
Click to expand...
That’s interesting as I’m registered as a Democrat don’t agree with the bolded at all.

Which speaks to the issue at large and to Joe’s question.  It’s a spectrum, there’s no question there are people at each end but the majority of us are a mixture of both conservative and liberal. It’s the smaller percentage that lines up perfectly with all of the ideals of either end.  

As others have said, now and days which “camp” you are categorized as by others is largely based on social beliefs.  The fiscal and economic waters are fairly muddied at this point.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Arielle Scarcella: How One Can Turn Conservative While Still Holding Traditional Liberal Values (7/25/22 20:14 PST)
Replies
3
Views
308
Juxtatarot
Juxtatarot
AAABatteries
What would life be like if independents had their way?
Replies
10
Views
436
tymarsas
T
timschochet
Is nuclear energy the answer to climate change?
2 3 4
Replies
199
Views
4K
Phil Elliott
Phil Elliott

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top