what exactly does it mean

[Kama]

yeah, a weird question, but you'll (hopefully) understand why I'm even asking.


One thing is that I have never really been able to follow all the political threads with much interest - all the matterst that don't concern me, all these names that don't mean anything - hey, I'm not much into Polish politics, why would you expect me to be interested in the American? So, I'm either skipping the threads entirely, or quickly scanning through. I therefore have the very general idea about the posters' views, but nothing very specific.

Another thing is that I think - I'm actually pretty sure - that being conservative/liberal is a very different thing in Poland than in America. Well, actually you don't even use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" around here much. And if you do, it's the pejorative usage. Basically, the distinction between the right and the left has been very much distorted by the years of the communist rules. In the 80's and early 90's the right was practically the voice of the people, the call for freedom. The left was quite naturally the enemy, the hated opressor. the catholic church was a major force in the struggle, and was obviously associated with the right.

There are more factors to this, I'm not going to get into much detail here. The point, however, is this: the only difference I personally can see between the right and the left in Poland is the one of religion. Most basically - if you're a good catholic, you're the rightist; if not, you're leftist. I can understand how this works - what puzzles me, however, is that this is basically really the onlt difference. If you look at the programs offered by the parties from the both sides - they are basiaclly the same*. The direction in which they want the country to develop is the same. The aims are the same. The means by which these aims are to be achieved are the same.both sides are basically promoting the same image of the state - privatisation, healthcare, unemployment issues - the differences in the proposed programs are pretty much negligable, and are of the organizational, not ideological character. And hence my question. What influences your political stance? How much of it is religion-based? Surely there is more to politics than the stance on abortion, "family values" and premarital sex? Because, really, it looks to me that this is how you define that someone is "right of center" in Poland.



*yes, this is a generalisation. There are some pretty much extremist parties on both sides with quite different aims and idealogies. but so far, they are not important enough to have a say at anything

[saxon75]

So are you asking what liberal/left and conservative/right mean in America, or what influences a person to become one or the other?

[Kama]

I'm asking what they mean in America, but you may answer your second question as a bonus ;)

[saxon75]

Traditionally, the liberal ideology in America favors policy that directs the government to bear the burden of taking care of its constituents, as well as policy intended to support groups that are they view as needing extra help. For example, public healthcare and affirmative action. Abortion is seen by liberals as an issue of women's rights. Liberals tend to be less religious in policy, although not necessarily in their own lives. They tend to support rehabilitation over punishment. They tend to support environmental causes more than conservatives do.

The conservative ideology favors policy that reduces the size of government and reduces taxes. Conservatives are traditionally more religious (i.e. Christian). They are often associated with business. They tend to support justice and security over civil liberties. Abortion is seen by conservatives as an issue of human life, often religiously-based. Conservatives tend to favor policy that allows people to take care of themselves, rather than forcing them to rely on the government. They prefer balanced budgets to deficits and are often set on eliminating government waste.

I've probably offended at least one American with my generalizations. Obviously not every person who self-identifies as a liberal or conservative will match my descriptions, but I've tried to be relatively even-handed.

[Starla*]

Very true, Saxon, and you have not offended me---I don't think your generalization was at all offending to either party (me, being slightly left of "center")
I don't think I could have said it better myself.
I do have stuff I''d like to add, but unfortunately, I don't have time to add them right now.

[GreNME]

Liberty versus equality.

The typical conservative thrust is usually centered around liberties, and the typical liberal thrust is usually centered around equality.

To get more in-depth, the conservative view is aimed towards protecting and advancing individual liberties, which often promotes the more competitive nature of man(kind), sometimes having a weakness which tends to create more of a struggle for those who are—in various different ways—not as strong/smart/healthy/young and able to adapt to changing situations. The liberal view is aimed towards protecting and strengthening individual equalities, which often promotes a progressive look at changes within society, sometimes having a weakness where the more able and capable are held back or hampered in some way in order to make up for the less capable.

When not taken to extremes, both approaches are valid and workable. To wit, extreme conservatism leads to a stratification of classes that has an insurmountable divide, making it eventually impossible for people to grow outside of their born class. This would create a caste system similar to that of the dark ages. With extreme liberalism, every decision, policy, and law would constantly favor the lowest common denominator, at the cost of those who excell. This would eventually make an otherwise progressive outlook become quite stunted (and possibly stagnant).

In America, it means that a conservative will be more prone to fight for a more laissez faire (http://www.geocities.com/colincolenso/attlaissez.html) policy economically (warning: biased link), and more regulation on the decisive reprimanding of social inappropriateness (criminal behavior). A liberal will be more in favor of a socialist-like economic system (http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/veblen/soc-econ.htm)* (not to be confused with socialism purity, or even Communism), and is more concerned with curbing anti-social (criminal) motivations than with punishing the behavior in a black-and-white manner. More taxes and government programs are developed under American liberal policies, and more stress has been put on individual liberties (as a whole, not specific groups) under conservative policies. It's a give-and-take that seems to constantly seem like one is vying for more power than the other, while mostly retaining a "general" balance (not as compared to the world, but to the extremes therein), excepting only short dips into one or the other. The complex and circuitous layers of the government in America tend to favor this kind of struggle, because without it, the nation would quickly become an extreme one way or the other (which, incidentally, many people fear is the case today).

Disclaimer: the US is typically more "conservative" in nature (from my first definition, not the US-tailored one) than most other powerful countries in the world. I don't really see this as a weakness or an intrinsic problem. However, I am typically more conservative on many issues than I am liberal, so that could easily be a bias. I will say that the conservative issues with liberty in particular play a large role with America being more conservative than most world powers, because of its history and roots (it was basically founded on fighting for individual liberty).



Anyone can feel free to correct me or take apart anything I said that they disagree with. :)

* please not the bolded "like" in there, implying that it is not total socialism, but something much like it.

[Kama]

Thanks for the clarification.

What I think is going on in Poland is that we have been a "free" country far to short for the clear distinction to take place. Naturally, the left wants to cut themselves off from the times of communist rules. One of the most important challenges the post-communist governments were facing was the privatisation. So, no matter whether they were the right or left wing, they were promoting private enterprise and competitiveness. Also in the case of unemloyment programs the stress is put at helping the unemployed to become more competitive on the job market rather than providing them with benefits and social care.

On the other hand, for the 50 years the people have grown quite accustomed to being cared for. Therefore I cannot really imagine a policy resigning from public healthcare, for example (the reforms are necessary, and are undertaken, but none suggest privatised healthcare).

With government change, the reforms in most branches are basically continued in the same direction, the changes made being of more personal nature (as in, who will now be in charge of things). With no major differences in the economic, social and foreign policy, the arguments are also becoming more petty and personal. Another matter is that it is difficult to predict who the people will vote for during the next elections - 90% of the people who voted right may vote left the next time, and vice-versa. Another thing are the constant rotations on the political scene - parties practially arising or falling apart over night, alliances of the left wing politicians with the right wing ones, etc.

It will take time for the things to settle, I suppose.

[saxon75]

Hmmm... John, your definitions seem to clash a bit with my own. I've always been more of the opinion that the representative liberal is more for civil liberties than the representative conservative (though this is likely a more recent corruption of the two terms). For example, the ACLU is quite a left-leaning organization.

I guess it depends on which liberties are being discussed. The First Amendment is defended by liberals, the Second by conservatives, the Fourth by both.

[GreNME]

The ACLU isn't really fighting for individual liberties, though. They are fighting for equality. That is, I think, where you see the clash. Take any left-leaning American group, and any liberties they are going to be fighting for will be more based in fighting for some kind of equality than actual liberty. Why do I say "actual liberty?" Because orginizations like the ACLU (which is a more extreme example than most) are actually fighting to have the government legislate what "liberties" we may and may not have, as opposed to leaving it up to the people to "do what is right" for their nation. That's the difference between "liberty" and "equality" as far as I can tell. The ACLU may use the term "liberties" in its name, but it fights less for liberties, and more for imposed equalities.

[saxon75]

Mind you I'm not a huge fan of the ACLU, but I think they'd say they're more about equal opportunity than strict equality.

But either way liberties are regulated by the government. Our liberties are provided, defended, and sometimes revoked by the government, and always have been. So whether or not liberties ought to be legislated by the government is largely irrelevant if you accept that government should exist at all.

I know that there are lots of conservatives out there who are upset about the Patriot Act. Nevertheless, most of the people who support it self-identify as conservative, and certainly most liberals area against it. And that certainly has a lot to do with liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly and due process of law.

I think that your standpoint comes from the conservative view that the best government is that which governs least. The government ought to operate only in certain areas and keep its nose out of everything else. So, in a sense, that is about liberty. But the other side is also true: that the only way to ensure certain liberties is by having the government enforce them. The Founding Fathers knew that when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Still, you can definitely make the argument that those documents were intended to protect the American people from their own government. The question then becomes, should the government have the authority to intervene in situations where one citizen might be infringing on the liberty of another? But that's not strictly a conservative vs. liberal issue.

[GreNME]

The entire layout of the government is to protect the citizens from the government. That's the point of the different levels and not having all power in any single office. It's certainly not the only reason, but it's a major contributor.

I do have to admit to finding it amusing that you say my view comes from a conservative standpoint, since it was a liberal who taught it to me. And like I said, I'm referring to the basic motivations and approach, not the methods. The ACLU is fighting for a strict equality, and using personal liberties as a method to accomplish this. Certain conservative groups are vying for more liberties among businessmen and women of small and large companies, and are trying to enforce it through regulation at a legislative level. You're pointing at the methods, I'm pointing out the motives.

The question then becomes, should the government have the authority to intervene in situations where one citizen might be infringing on the liberty of another? But that's not strictly a conservative vs. liberal issue.
You're right, it's not. However, the point and time where the intervention takes place is an issue that can be clearly defined by sides.

[saxon75]

The ACLU is fighting for a strict equality, and using personal liberties as a method to accomplish this. To me, strict equality is more or less equivalent to communism; i.e. "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs." Now, this may just be ignorance on my part, but I'm not aware of the ACLU being a particular proponent of communism. In fact, I have a hard time seeing how it would even be possible to jump from freedom of speech and minority rights (the two things I have most often seen the ACLU yelling about) to making sure everyone has the same amount of money.

The entire layout of the government is to protect the citizens from the government. By the way, I completely agree with you here. Not that it makes any difference whether or not I agree, since it's true.

[GreNME]

No, you're trying to translate "strict equality" to communism, when Marxist communism (that you quoted) is an economic ideal. What the ACLU is doing is not fighting for economic equality, but for civil rights equality. Apples and oranges, and possibly why you were confused about what I said. The ACLU isn't about pressing communist ideals, they are about making the biggest deal they can about forcing as equal a civil environment as they can (without infinging on liberties). I think it's a great idea, but I've never agreed with exactly how the ACLU goes about doing it (but that's a whole different topic :) ).

[saxon75]

Ah, OK. Gotcha now. See what you're calling "strict equality" I would call "strictly equal rights" or "strictly equal opportunity."

Stupid semantics...

[GreNME]

Heh... perhaps I should have clarified what I meant from the start. I didn't think about it being interpreted that way. Whoops... :D

[Hobbes]

I've heard two definitions of liberalism and conservatism. The first was that conservatives are for smaller governments and liberals are for bigger governments. I think that one is more applicable to the beginning of the 1800s than now but it is accepted by some. The other one is that conservatives want things to stay the same and liberals desire change.

My opinion is that each group has become so dependent on making sure that they all believe the same thing that their stand on each issue is no longer correlated with their overall belief set. Looking at each view issue by issue is probably more productive than trying to find a definition of believes that will explain the philosophy behind each choice. But then again I really dislike definitions that try and pervade over all political arguments instead of specific examples.

Leto’s list of individual beliefs is decently comprehensive for being pretty short. :D

Hobbes :)

[Starla*]

The irony of the American Government.

We have liberty and freedom, but in order to protect it, we must be restricted and watched.

Haha.

I have so much more to say on what John, Saxon and Hobbes are discussing, but it's 1 am and I've been up since 5 and do not have the brain power to process my thoughts properly.
Another day............. ;)

[Hobbes]

*cough* It is another day...

Hobbes :)

[GreNME]

*bump* for Lalo

[Lalito]

Since I'm really not in a mood to type it all out again, I'll just type out a crapload of names and spend a lot of time copying/pasting.

Mexican efficiency. This is why we rule the world.

John: Eddie, are you seriously that blind to how political ideology works?

Lalo: Yes.

Lalo: Heh.

John: It ain't black and white, bro

Lalo: Sorry, dude, this is such a ridiculously bad night for being clear-headed. I fall back on those definitions when I can't conjure up better.

John: that's cool. You just need to understand that almost all people ain't gonna fit into that mold

John: You probably even dont

Lalo: No, of course not. But those are the most basic, fundamental definitions, yes?

John: nope

John: they shift too often

John: especially on the more specific issues

John: For example, I could ask a liberal in Arkansas what they feel on abortion and sex ed and taxation, and it would be different than a liberal in New Hampshire

Lalo: On specific issues, sure. But I can reasonably describe myself as a liberal libertarian, given that I'm for a limited government and reasonable distribution of social programs, I'm guessing. With a smattering of conservative posit

John: but very similar to a conservative in NJ

Lalo: So that means local definitions are flawed, not the general concepts behind them.

John: Nope

John: It means that generalizations don't work, because people are more complex

John: otherwise, saying that all black people make good basketball players and dancers would be an acceptable generalization

Lalo: Well, no shit. But general political ideologies run in patterns, and those four do an adequate job of describing the most basic possible flow of rough political thoughts.

Lalo: It would be if you can choose to be black. A better analogy would be if someone's anti-government regulation of militia, they're probably anti-government regulation of the economy.

John: Okay, Ed, then is it an acceptable generalization that all gay men like frilly clothes and girly movies? And dress well?

John: An argument can be made that it's a choice

Lalo: It can be generalized, presuming homosexuality's a choice, that in today's don't-ask-don't-tell society, that openly homosexual men are more likely to be flamboyant than openly heterosexual men, yes.

John: Ed, you're making excuses for pigeonholing people who are different than you

John: You're justifying it any way you can

Lalo: Like hell. You can judge patterns of political thought no matter which way they run.

John: No, because you don't seem to understand the basic ideas between liberal and conservative to begin with

John: so you miss the point

Lalo: If someone's anti-government intrusion, they're likely libertarian. If they're for the equality of homosexuals but for the regulation of the economy, they're likely liberals.

John: No, Ed

Lalo: Which basic ideas am I missing, exactly, John?

John: I've explained this in detail before

Lalo: Not to me, or if you have, I've forgotten. It's difficult to forget condescension, though, so I'm guessing I haven't heard your bit before.

John: Conservatism is about liberty, and Liberalism is about equality. That is the basic tenet to each.

John: Since no single person on this planet is totally one or the other, it becomes an issue of interpretation

John: And the lines are blurred in each case

John: on every issue

that tt kiwi: congratulations on the silk underwear, too [kept here because it's a fun non-sequitor to think about]

John: except when toeing a party liine

Lalo: Right, which is why so many conservatives are for the freedom to be homosexual. The freedom to smoke weed.

Lalo: Please, John.

John: You're confusing "freedom" with "liberty"

Lalo: Conservatives are for economic freedom, but not social freedom. It's the most basic distinction to make.

Lalo: Which difference do you mean to point out?

John: Dude, are you seriously going to sit here and say that you are not prejudiced against anything you perceive as conservative?

Lalo: I'm sitting here and telling you that if I'm against an issue, it may well be conservative. That doesn't mean I make up my mind before I hear the issue, though, as you seem to be trying to imply with that non-sequitor.

John: "'m sitting here and telling you that if I'm against an issue, it may well be conservative."

John: That kinda sounds like Bush, if you replace "conservative" with "evil"

John: Which is indubitably what you characterize conservatism as anyway

Lalo: Yeah, like hell. Except I don't label every issue as conservative if I'm against it.

John: Yes you do

Lalo: Heh. Right, John. So now when you lose the argument you resort to ad hominem?

Lalo: Really?

John: you just said that if you disagree with it, it's conservative

Lalo: So if I'm against drug legalization, it's conservative.

Lalo: No I didn't, geek.

Lalo: Read closer.

Lalo: I'm sitting here and telling you that if I'm against an issue, it may well be conservative. That doesn't mean I make up my mind before I hear the issue, though, as you seem to be trying to imply with that non-sequitor.

John: I'm sitting here and telling you that if I'm against an issue, it may well be conservative.

John: looks like you did, bud

Lalo: It may well be. That means I tend to run toward the liberal side, but that doesn't mean if I'm against an issue, it's conservative. Geek.

John: If you don't agree, it's conservative

Lalo: No. Surely you have enough of a grasp on the English language to handle the concept.

John: I think you have enough grasp to try to talk your way out of it

Lalo: I'm flattered.

John: but you can't

John: And your pattern when posting supports it as well

Lalo: But I think you're trying to weasel your way out of the last argument by instead reverting to tired attacks that I'm just a reactionary liberal with no actual thought processes.

Lalo: My pattern?

John: every issue you have ever argued against has turned into conservative-bashing

Lalo: So, John, answer the question I asked you. Since I'm against drug legalization, it's a conservative issue? If I'm against racial affirmative action, it's a conservative issue?

Lalo: Like hell.

John: whenever you disagree, it's because of typical conservative issues

John: Drug legalization is not an issue for either

Lalo: Right, John, that may be because I tend toward liberalism and libertarianism in my political stances.

Lalo: A pattern is not a set formula.

Lalo: It's not?

John: affirmative action is also neither, because it's an agenda-based coalition for a specific party

Lalo: You're joking.

John: you also seem to mix up political parties with poltitcal ideologies

Lalo: AA falls into your own insistence that liberals are for equality.

John: No, it doesn't want equality. It wants to shift inequality

Lalo: You seem to be mixing up the general concepts behind each political formula, then reverting to ad hominem attacks on me when it fails.

John: I'm not the one calling someone a geek

Lalo: Whatever your rationalization, I don't fall into it. Does that mean I'm not a liberal?

Lalo: Geek's an affectionate term for you, geek

Lalo: Whatever your rationalization, I don't fall into it. Does that mean I'm not a liberal?

Lalo: Geek's an affectionate term for you, geek.

John: It doesn't mean you're not a liberal. It does mean that on this issue, you don't agree that they are working for true equality

John: which would fall in line with yout liberal ideology

Lalo: No. You don't seem to grasp it, John. I'm for equality of opportunity, not equality.

John: Ed, go here: http://www.grenme.com/forum//index.php?sho...hl=conservative (http://www.grenme.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=10&hl=conservative)

John: argue it there

Lalo: Yessir mastuh.

Lalo: Heh.

MakDove: He [little John, LadyDove's son] does post as Lazer King. He's a busy kid though and is really only interested in the personalities at Hatrack. For instance, he loves John L.

Lalo: Can't imagine why. Heh.

jwb2e: haha

John: John (Lazer King) rocks

John: Smart kid, curious, and he loves to have fun

Lalo: Bizarre. I said the same about my last girlfriend.

jwb2e: your last girlfriend was a he?

jwb2e: hmm..

John: indeed

Lalo: Thus his curiosity.