0

I don't know where to start, so I'll start here. Let's let liberals/progressives define themselves, and conservatives likewise.

But seriously, this reeks of such intolerance, I cannot fathom anyone labeling this "progressive" or "liberal".

Sorry Sashi but the very fact that you are running as a republican disqualifies you as an intelligent and caring member of society. Surely you must realize this and if so how is it possible that you can associate yourself with that party.

The republican party has rampaged through this society and destroyed its very foundations with its insane deregulation notions and its spin mastering of our leadership into a personality cult. The very selection of McCain and his even more cynical selection of an extremist like Palin is the clearest evidence possible for any thinking person that the Republican party is simply evil in both intent and action.

If you have any moral conscience you would declare yourself an independent and declare your opposition to the Republican agenda and its membership.

Heaven help us if the likes of you and your party are elected.

13
Contributors
67
Replies
68
Views
9 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by jephthah
Featured Replies
  • [QUOTE=GrimJack;716437]I am reading the referenced article now and it looks like there is no room for atheists, gay families.[/QUOTE]Both tend to fall under this: [QUOTE]Conservatives believe that the marketplace of ideas should be open to a free and vigorous exchange of religious thought. People should have the freedom to advocate … Read More

0

I don't know where to start, so I'll start here. Let's let liberals/progressives define themselves, and conservatives likewise.

But seriously, this reeks of such intolerance, I cannot fathom anyone labeling this "progressive" or "liberal".

The Republican Party has successfully redefined liberal and progressive to the point that, whatever it originally meant, it's been so perverted as to mean nothing now. I don't even use the word "liberal" anymore since it has become so tainted. I agree with you. Let liberals define themselves and conservatives define themselves too. When you let the other side define you, it's not going to be a very accurate description. The two words are now no longer used to explain anything, but rather to simply dumb down any argument to a sound bite, and most arguments where they are used seem to go completely ad-hominem, as in "You are a liberal. Therefore anything you say is completely useless and I don't have to rebut your argument. The mere fact that a liberal is offering the argument is rebuttal enough." I think it's really gotten to that level of intellect. I'd say "conservative" has changed so much that it too no longer has much of a meaning.

It's a shame because at one time the two words actually reflected genuine ideologies that were definable and you could actually debate the merits of each. Most people wouldn't be able to define what they mean now. I sure can't.

0

It's a shame because at one time the two words actually reflected genuine ideologies that were definable and you could actually debate the merits of each. Most people wouldn't be able to define what they mean now. I sure can't.

You can check this out...at one time in the deep south, in my lifetime, the conservatives were the Democrats and vica versa.

0

Let liberals define themselves and conservatives define themselves too.

My turn to bite.
I would define a Conservative (note case) as a classical liberal, pretty much the antithesis of the modern US Liberal (although I would frame things quite differently from what Wikipedia states).

The Republican Party ...

You can check this out...at one time in the deep south, in my lifetime, the conservatives were the Democrats and vica versa.

I specifically made the effort to frame this as Liberal v Conservative rather than Democrat v Republican. For one thing, Conservative != Republican and Republican != Conservative. Thus I attempted to draw a distinction.

Perhaps these replies could be reformulated with that in mind?

Otherwise, I'm thinking that zeroth has highlighted the southern Democrat tendency for resisting change, which is not synonymous with Conservative.

0

I'm thinking that zeroth has highlighted the southern Democrat tendency for resisting change, which is not synonymous with Conservative.

Not synonymous but integral to the thinking. I'm only pointing out that it's hard to tell if a zebra is white with black stripes or black with white stripes...

0

Actually it is pretty easy to tell about zebras.

WRT: Dave's reference to classical liberalism - it is not w/o controversy so I would like to point out that there is a Libertarian tendency to the editors' POV.

0


I specifically made the effort to frame this as Liberal v Conservative rather than Democrat v Republican. For one thing, Conservative != Republican and Republican != Conservative. Thus I attempted to draw a distinction.

Perhaps these replies could be reformulated with that in mind?

I think Leonard Pitts put it well in this column:

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/684287.html

Whatever "Conservative" used to mean, if Conservative != Republican, then Conservatives should be really angry at the Republican Party because they've redefined the words to be synonyms.

0

Whatever "Conservative" used to mean, if Conservative != Republican, then Conservatives should be really angry at the Republican Party because they've redefined the words to be synonyms.

No political party has the monopoly of conservatism. If you keep bringing the Republican Party up, I am going to think you are not understanding the subject of the thread.

In any case, I would be more interested to know what you believe liberalism is, and not what I should feel towards the Republican Party, just because I subscribe to conservatism somewhat.

0

I think Leonard Pitts put it well in this column:

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/684287.html

Whatever "Conservative" used to mean, if Conservative != Republican, then Conservatives should be really angry at the Republican Party because they've redefined the words to be synonyms.

I've never been really fond of Mr. Pitts' views and opinion. But...

Where were you when conservatism was untethered from principle, unhooked from reality? Where were you when it became smug and self-righteous, when it traded its integrity for situational outrage, its credibility for angry certitude, its honor for ballot box success? Where were you when it sold out to evangelicals and anti-intellectuals? Where were you when it got hijacked?

I was voting against "RINOs", of course (dating back to 1998; before then I wasn't terribly politically active).

0

All right, fair enough. I can drop Republican versus Democrat. As I said in an earlier post, I don't think I can define "liberal" and "conservative" and I don't use the word "liberal" or "conservative" much anymore because I think they no longer HAVE a meaning, and for sure, others have defined them far better than I can, but I'll give it a whirl and try to give a non-biased definition of "liberal " and "conservative":

"conservative" - things are about the way they should be and are fair and work well for the most part. Established norms, laws, and customs are generally correct. Established customs have had the kinks worked out, whereas new ones generally still have flaws and should be met with a critical eye and shouldn't be adopted right away. Today's FDA would be an example of conservative thinking in that respect. New drugs should not be accepted until tested and verified. For the most part, people who work hard end up at the top and those who don't work hard end up at the bottom and that is the way it should be, so "corrective" measures are usually not needed to level the playing field since most people end up where they deserve to be and most "solutions" just make things worse. People given help often don't take that help and use it to try to get self-sufficient, but instead end up becoming dependent on it.

"liberal" - the established way of doing things is very often flawed and needs change. People in power often take advantage of that power, so an outside force needs to step in and level the playing field. Very often people who work hard ARE NOT rewarded for their efforts due to factors beyond their control and thus need to be helped and there is nothing wrong with that. The fortunate and well off should not feel guilty about being well off, but should be willing to sacrifice to help those who are not as well off, and should also not attribute their entire success to talent and hard work. There's lot of luck involved.


I guess that's how I'd describe the two viewpoints, though like I said, others have done so better than me. As to the original topic of the thread, it seems to me two people were friends, then the friendship ended because the purported Progressive couldn't get past his disagreement with the political beliefs of his now-former-friend. The author seems to think that this says something about Progressives' intolerance, but I think it actually says more about the author than the person who ended the friendship. One person who describes himself as Progressive has an intolerant attitude and the author concludes that Progressives (plural) are intolerant. Very flawed thinking on the part of the author in my view.

0

Your definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" sound a bit like the dictionary definitions yet, as opposed to "Liberal" and "Conservative".

I haven't been around here much lately, and have been busy with other things, but I'm still trying to follow along. As such, I just happened upon an article today, "All That Darned Conservatism", that attracted my attention.

0

A conservative person believes in individual responsibility as the cornerstone of behavior. She or he draws upon that conviction for inner strength, when circumstances are not favorable. She or he doesn't accept the principle that “the results justify the means”.
Tradition is a strong anchor in “weathering times”, as well as self-reliance and the value of virtues handled down from generation to generation.
She or he respects and honors any authority that safeguard those cherished values. Therefore she or he accepts government as a form of authority that can protect and safeguard inalienable rights and the ability to exercise that responsibility fore mentioned . Nevertheless, government should be kept in check to not intrude unduly in personal lives, nor force unjust dominion upon its citizenry.
She or he recognizes the value of human live and free agency. Accepting only any form of socialism that results of the free interaction between individuals, for mutual betterment.
It is not uncommon to find that a libertarian individual adhere to some of these same principles, only not necessarily in that order of priority or sense of importance.

In the other hand, a liberal person works under the assumption that solution to problems and betterment in livelihood, can be achieved by compulsion, brought through social programs and mandates. The “results justify the means”. Sacrifices are acceptable as long as do not rest upon him or her.
The masses are always saw after, to legitimize dominion. Individual responsibility it is shifted, quite often, to government.
She or he demands unreasonable comfort and security, to the suffering of individual freedoms.
Socialism is the right way of living, without regards for the cost, material or otherwise.
Change is a constant motto, since unhappiness and contempt depends always of unreachable high level of entitlement.

0

Conservatives are me, me, me and don't give a hoot about their fellow human beings.

Libertarians believe in full individual freedom of thought, expression, and action.

0

Conservatives are me, me, me and don't give a hoot about their fellow human beings.

While you are entitle to your passionate opinion based perhaps on personal experience draw from certain individuals that professed to be conservative, or maybe just based on general hot air passed through, I am here to remark that it is not the case.

Libertarians believe in full individual freedom of thought, expression, and action.

Why don't you expand on that "full individual freedom of thought, expression, and action"? That way we'll know what you mean.

0

> drink her pretty
Just how much drink was drunk in that last picture? :twisted:

Not much, I think they really like each other.

0

I stand corrected, Conservatives like their own kind.

If you honestly believe either one of them are conservative, you are mistaken.
George Bush is not a conservative, neither is John McCain. But then, if you don't know that, there's not much you should say about conservatism, and little credibility you would have concerning whatever you say about liberalism.

0

If you honestly believe either one of them are conservative, you are mistaken.
George Bush is not a conservative, neither is John McCain. But then, if you don't know that, there's not much you should say about conservatism, and little credibility you would have concerning whatever you say about liberalism.

You won!

0

If you honestly believe either one of them are conservative, you are mistaken.
George Bush is not a conservative, neither is John McCain. But then, if you don't know that, there's not much you should say about conservatism, and little credibility you would have concerning whatever you say about liberalism.

Well, George Bush certainly calls himself a conservative, as do a whole bunch of other people who I assume Dave would classify as "RINOs", and a huge section of his supporters. There's been an attempt to define conservatism on this thread, but I think people can be forgiven for thinking a conservative is someone whose ideology revolves around "Guns, God, and Gays" and "Family Values", etc., because a whole bunch of people who loudly and proudly claim to be conservatives (whether they are or not) say that that's what conservatism is. As a non-Conservative myself, I'm not really qualified to say what "conservatives" believe. I gave it my best shot from memory from Philosophy class. I had a really cool, interesting William F. Buckley-type intellectual as an instructor, so it was one of the classes I paid attention in, though it's been a while. Anyway, I think that if non-Conservatives have stolen the word, then "real" conservatives have to take it back, which is why I linked Pitts' article earlier. This is a battle between two branches of conservatives and the "Guns, Gods, Gays" branch (oversimplification I'm sure) seems to be winning, so that's what people think a conservative is.

Dave, you mentioned the difference between "liberal"/"conservative" and "Liberal"/"Conservative" and I admit I tend to use the words without much regard to capitalization. I'm not entirely sure when to capitalize and when not to. Are you supposed to use the lower case when talking about the contemporary words and the upper case when talking about the original doctrines in the past (i.e. 50, 100, 200 years ago, or whenever exactly the ideology changed)?

0

Dave, you mentioned the difference between "liberal"/"conservative" and "Liberal"/"Conservative" and I admit I tend to use the words without much regard to capitalization. I'm not entirely sure when to capitalize and when not to. Are you supposed to use the lower case when talking about the contemporary words and the upper case when talking about the original doctrines in the past (i.e. 50, 100, 200 years ago, or whenever exactly the ideology changed)?

In my view, lowercase is what fits the dictionary definitions; uppercase are the current political ideologies. Over time, the political ideologies have take almost completely opposite meaning of the "book" definitions. Thus my impetus in asking for a clarification.

(And Pitts is a Liberal -- one side shouldn't define its opposite, IMO; thus this thread.)

YMMV

-1

[...]There's been an attempt to define conservatism on this thread,[...]

Yes, and liberalism as well. Nevertheless, I notice that you seem to dedicate more focus and words in what you are "not really qualified to say".

As a non-Conservative myself, I'm not really qualified to say what "conservatives" believe.

The "I don't know what THAT is but I am not THAT" pretext is somewhat weak. Especially, when you are determined in pointing out that there's a problem with THAT.

Votes + Comments
Are you, the most annoying person on the face of the planet?
0

The "I don't know what THAT is but I am not THAT" pretext is somewhat weak. Especially, when you are determined in pointing out that there's a problem with THAT.

I say I'm not a Conservative since, no matter which of the definitions one uses, they don't really fit my worldview.


(And Pitts is a Liberal -- one side shouldn't define its opposite, IMO; thus this thread.)

YMMV

I agree with you. Each side should be allowed to define itself. The reason that I think Liberal no longer means much of anything is precisely because Liberals allowed non-Liberals to define it since 1988 into something completely absurd without fighting back. But I don't think Pitts' main point (or my point) is to try to define Conservatism. The point is that, with the Bush Administration's sinking popularity, it seems like a lot of people who define themselves as Conservative are now wanting to distance themselves from his policies because he not a "real Conservative". Those who didn't like the policies all along and always claimed he wasn't a Conservative, even when his popularity was high, are at least consistent and may have a point, but it seems like a lot of people are trying to distance themselves from Bush's ideas only recently when he's become so unpopular.

0

W. was a "compassionate Conservative", which in Conservative eyes has been neither 'compassionate' nor 'Consrevative' -- roughly since 2003.

The '06 midterms were a late reflection.

0

The 'neocons' are the heart, soul and brain of the conservative movement in the US. After all, they are the ones that picked the ultimate perfect Conservatiive Sarah Palin.

0

The 'neocons' are the heart, soul and brain of the conservative movement in the US. After all, they are the ones that picked the ultimate perfect Conservatiive Sarah Palin.

Very well said, I simply adore Sarah! You have defined the heart, soul and brain of the conservative party, but the bread and butter of this great organization is Christianity, well represented by George Bush who prays for this country every morning, and of course oil and guns, here Dick Cheney does an admirable job. I am sure Sarah will easily take over that responsibility.

0

The 'neocons' are the heart, soul and brain of the conservative movement in the US.

Hahahahahahaha

I don't even think you have any idea what you just said. But that's quite funny.

0

>Are you, the most annoying person on the face of the planet? -scru
Answer: No.
But for you I'll try my best to live up to "your" expectation.

[...]
The point is that, with the Bush Administration's sinking popularity, it seems like a lot of people who define themselves as Conservative are now wanting to distance themselves from his policies because he not a "real Conservative". Those who didn't like the policies all along and always claimed he wasn't a Conservative, even when his popularity was high, are at least consistent and may have a point, but it seems like a lot of people are trying to distance themselves from Bush's ideas only recently when he's become so unpopular.

That's a valid point of view, nevertheless, I would like to offer another one.
With Bush, it was not much different that if McCain wins the election. Conservatives knows what he is, but since the alternative is not such an alternative to the conservative, thus the default support.
I don't agree with the suggestion is all a "shifting game according to popularity".

I say I'm not a Conservative since, no matter which of the definitions one uses, they don't really fit my worldview.

Tell us some about your world-view. Pick an issue that you think it would represent a good example where you can show what to be a non-conservative is.

0

To be a Conservative you have to have something to conserve. I assume it's some kind of hoard stashed away someplace. If you have nothing, you might just be a Liberal.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.