Idea of Liberalism or Conservatism??

[SIGScienceISGod]

Would a country be better served Liberal or Conservative??
(Based on USA parties ideas)

 

[XC(A)libur]

Both are so similar it wouldn't even matter, but that's sort of a subjective question. It really depends on what you consider ethical and what major opinions you have. To me, liberalism in the US would serve better than conservatism. Simply because of a welfare system that actually does something, access to health care, and my biggest reason - the prison and criminalization systems in the US.

Conservatives advocate large military and nuclear weapons, the liberals at least would like to take trillions of dollars being used on war to fund something else that actually matters.

 

[Aught3]

Perhaps you should explain the main differences between the political positions in the USA?

 

[SIGScienceISGod]

Democratic Party (Liberals)- More Socialistic in Ideas, Government should mandate and control more things.

Republican Party (Conservatives)- The people should have freedomfrom government mandation.
(Tend to be more Theistic in views)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Democratic Party (Liberals)- More Socialistic in Ideas, Government should mandate and control more things.

Republican Party (Conservatives)- The people should have freedomfrom government mandation.
(Tend to be more Theistic in views)

Neither of those are accurate. The Democrats are the traditional, conservative party. The Republican Party is a radical, reactionary party. Neither party is for either more or less government control.

 

[Icefire9atla]

Republicans-
-Less taxes and less government spending
-stronger military, more jingoistic foreign policy
-bans on gay marriage and bans or restrictions on abortion and stem cell research
-less gun control

Democrats-
-more taxes, welfare, social programs, and government spending.
-more diplomatic approach to foreign policy
-for marriage equality, stem cell research, and abortion
-a more socialist and regulated economy
-government intervention in environmental protection issues

Edit: As I understand it, both are pretty conservative when compared to European parties.

 

[JonathanCid]

Excluding Joe's post, the other posts are highly inaccurate and misleading. As Joe said, neither party can be categorized as being for "more government" or "less government". The real question is - what things in society need to be regulated? Liberals will say issues of wealth and power require regulation, and conservatives will say that issues of culture require regulation. Thus, conservatives will concern themselves with items involving "traditional family values", and liberals will concern themselves with middle class empowerment and such things.

Liberalism is not socialism. Let me make this explicitly clear such that anyone who repeats this garbage in the future will be guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by labor. Socialism is a turnover of capital to the working class altogether. This does not form part of the long-standing principles of liberalism. Liberalism is a "live and let live" philosophy putting the individual at the center of its philosophy. The problem for liberals is when certain somebodies in our society don't "let live". Classical liberals, "libertarians", believe in a laissez-faire free market, whereas social liberals, of the kind seen in the United States, believe that government must empower "the little guy", weaker individuals, for the sake of protecting liberty. Socialism profoundly contradicts liberalism when it comes to the socialist's collectivist outlook. Liberals typically oppose the status quo, believing society can always find some way to make progress.

Conservatism calls for gradual change in society, not sudden change, and focuses on preserving societal culture. Conservatives view culture, "the way we do things", as a "vault" of wisdom collected by society over time and look to those reserves for guidance. Conservatives typically support the status quo, believing that the way things are will usually be better than the way things would be if they were changed.

If liberals are to be called socialists for promoting empowerment of workers, then conservatives must be called fascists for resisting change and imposing their cultural views on society. Despite these slurs, however, most liberals are not socialists, and most conservatives are not fascists. The name-calling we see so much in America is childish, pretentious, and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Icefire9atla]

I guess to answer to original question, it really depends on the situation of the country.

One example,

Ronald Reagan's supply side economics plan to reduce government spending and taxes worked to solve the economic crisis of his term because large government was part of the problem. Today though, not enough regulation is the problem so reducing the government would make things worse.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I guess to answer to original question, it really depends on the situation of the country.

One example,

Ronald Reagan's supply side economics plan to reduce government spending and taxes worked to solve the economic crisis of his term because large government was part of the problem. Today though, not enough regulation is the problem so reducing the government would make things worse.

"Large government" wasn't the problem... Reagan's government was the problem, and Republican governments generally fail because Republicans don't want to or simply cannot govern well. Reagan neither reduced spending nor taxes. All he did was fail up and down until Alzheimer's seized him.

The Republicans capable and interested in governing are all "Blue Dog" Democrats. I'm not sure there are more than a half-dozen honest-to-Me liberals in the entire federal government.

 

[SIGScienceISGod]

Republicans-
-Less taxes and less government spending
-stronger military, more jingoistic foreign policy
-bans on gay marriage and bans or restrictions on abortion and stem cell research
-less gun control

Democrats-
-more taxes, welfare, social programs, and government spending.
-more diplomatic approach to foreign policy
-for marriage equality, stem cell research, and abortion
-a more socialist and regulated economy
-government intervention in environmental protection issues

Edit: As I understand it, both are pretty conservative when compared to European parties.

^This is what i meant. Great job, IceFire!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

^This is what i meant. Great job, IceFire!

Yeah... AWESOME. Wrong, but AWESOME! :lol:

 

[Icefire9atla]

Yeah... AWESOME. Wrong, but AWESOME!

Your saying that those aren't the policies of republicans and democrats... because I'm certain that they are.

Liberals and conservatives are another matter.

Large government" wasn't the problem... Reagan's government was the problem, and Republican governments generally fail because Republicans don't want to or simply cannot govern well. Reagan neither reduced spending nor taxes. All he did was fail up and down until Alzheimer's seized him.

No, the economy was already collapsing in Carter's administration, it improved and grew in Reagan's administration.

I would like to make a correction to my earlier statement, while Reagan did decrease taxes (in fact, he instituted the largest across the board tax cut in US history), he didn't decrease spending, which contributed to our budget deficit today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration

 

[philebus]

The term Liberalism gets slapped onto different things. Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism is the central philosophy of the fight for independence. It is a position characterised by what we call negative liberty rights. This are usually taken to be natural rights rather than just legal (the constitution characterises them as natural) and by negative we mean that they impose a duty not to interfere with other's living and chosen pursuits (so long as those chosen pursuits to not infringe on the rights of others). It is important to note that this conception of rights implicitly accepts something called acts/omissions doctrine, which claims that omissions are distinct from actions. Hence, it would be nice to give someone some of your money to survive but their need to survive imposes no obligation upon you - if you omit to give them money and they die, your omission was not an action and so you have no responsibility for their death. This is why many Libertarians will call redistributive taxation theft. Some libertarians will accept some such taxation only if it is the minimum requirement for a stable society.

Socialism has been mentioned here but is these days it is a broader term than in the past. Perhaps we should better characterise it as endorsing redistributive taxation and with it the acceptance of two things: 1. That we can achieve some things collectively as well as individually 2. That omissions are actions. These two statements are sufficient for redistributive taxation and the second is diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.

Conservatism is a stranger animal. Essentially it means conserving traditional values and beliefs, only allowing gradual change which is still resisted. There are broadly two defences of this position, that slowed progress in regards to such things as women's equality and vote, as well as the abolition of slavery and then segregation. The first is that usually associated with the general public - that they believe that the traditional values and beliefs are correct. The second is more interesting. It accepts that there are no knowable truths, particularly with regards to religion and morality, and that there can be no genuine progress in these matters. We are afloat on an ocean of chaos and those traditions they fight to conserve form our only life rafts - to erode them is to erode our only defence from chaos in which society would drown. Quite where this leaves the conservative elite who understand our situation but do not themselves drown in despair as they lead their flock has been the subject of some debate.

What we see in the British conservative party and the US Republican party is an amalgamation of the two. Conservatism with regards to social moral values and Libertarianism with regards to economic activity. The two do not always sit comfortably together but then, folk tend to pay little attention to meta-ethics.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Neither by themselves will do the country any good. Extremes are never good, which is why we need a balance between the too.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Your saying that those aren't the policies of republicans and democrats... because I'm certain that they are.

...and you're wrong again.

No, the economy was already collapsing in Carter's administration, it improved and grew in Reagan's administration.

I would like to make a correction to my earlier statement, while Reagan did decrease taxes (in fact, he instituted the largest across the board tax cut in US history), he didn't decrease spending, which contributed to our budget deficit today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration

Wrong again, on several counts. The economy didn't "improve" under Reagan, it got worse for pretty much everyone. The only people for whom the economy improved? The ones that Reagan borrowed all that money for, and then gave it away to. To help pay for it, Reagan enacted the largest tax INCREASE in American history, and the economy didn't pick up until Clinton finished reversing Reagan's disastrous tax policies.

You're so incredibly ignorant on politics and economics, I can pretty much count on you to get things exactly backwards. You probably think Clinton and Obama are liberals too. :lol:

 

[rulezdaworld0]

Neither by themselves will do the country any good. Extremes are never good, which is why we need a balance between the too.

Personally, I would like to see both liberal and conservative members in the government (in every government, not just the USA)
For a start, its more representative of the people. Say for example that 6 in every 10 voters were liberal, 3 conservative and 1 voting for third party candidates. Then 6 in every 10 government members would be liberal, 3 would be conservative etc... This way you have all partys criticising the decision. If we had this when Bush was in power, we may have had more opposition to it, opposition that actually mattered.

 

[Icefire9atla]

Wrong again, on several counts. The economy didn't "improve" under Reagan, it got worse for pretty much everyone. The only people for whom the economy improved? The ones that Reagan borrowed all that money for, and then gave it away to. To help pay for it, Reagan enacted the largest tax INCREASE in American history, and the economy didn't pick up until Clinton finished reversing Reagan's disastrous tax policies.

I'm certain that your wrong, I even have a government source to back me up.

Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit.

A renewal of national self-confidence by 1984 helped Reagan and Bush win a second term with an unprecedented number of electoral votes. Their victory turned away Democratic challengers Walter F. Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro.

In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.

from this site
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/ronaldreagan/

...and you're wrong again

Nope.
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/
Educate yourself, these are the policies of Democrats and Republicans. Whether or not they actually are liberal or conservative doesn't matter, because I never actually said they were liberal or conservative, I just said that these are the policies of each party.

You're so incredibly ignorant on politics and economics, I can pretty much count on you to get things exactly backwards. You probably think Clinton and Obama are liberals too

When did I say anything about any party being liberal or conservative.
All I have said is that the republicans support some policies, the democrats others, and sometimes, different approaches are needed to solve problems.

 

[lightbulbsun88]

Neither by themselves will do the country any good. Extremes are never good, which is why we need a balance between the too.

This is such a middle ground fallacy. :facepalm:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Personally, I would like to see both liberal and conservative members in the government (in every government, not just the USA)
For a start, its more representative of the people. Say for example that 6 in every 10 voters were liberal, 3 conservative and 1 voting for third party candidates. Then 6 in every 10 government members would be liberal, 3 would be conservative etc... This way you have all partys criticising the decision. If we had this when Bush was in power, we may have had more opposition to it, opposition that actually mattered.

Yeah, too bad we don't have any Liberals in American politics, at least not at the national level. Well... Bernie Sanders, but he's an ACTUAL Socialist. And Kucinich, and that's pretty much it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm certain that your wrong, I even have a government source to back me up.

But you're still wrong... :lol:

Mostly you're wrong because you look at what they SAY, instead of what they DO. Reagan wrecked the economy pretty significantly, was responsible for the largest tax increase in the history of America, and Republicans have increased the size of government, the national debt, and crashed the economy for decades. The Democrats, being the Conservative party in America, have done a slightly better job, but haven't advanced anything truly progressive in decades.