4 ms·

> Or am I misinterpreting something here? To be brief, yes. Conservationism has historically been associated with a strong central government, under the belie

> Or am I misinterpreting something here? To be brief, yes. Conservationism has historically been associated with a strong central government, under the belief that a selected group of suitable people are better at governing than the general population. The definition of "suitable" has changed throughout the years: typical examples are "King chosen by divine right" or "general with enough troops to seize the capital". Liberals have emphasized the idea that the general population should have a loud voice in their own future. In an ideal liberal society, people lead their own lives according to their own desires, with decisions affecting the entire group made by group consensus. Authority figures would be temporarily elected by consensus to lead the group during times of danger, and would step down once things are back to normal. Both extremes have been tried during various times in history, and there's a lot of evidence that we don't yet know how to make either one work. Purely conservative societies tend to degrade into dictatorships when the wrong leader comes to power, while purely liberal societies fall apart when they grow past the size of a small town. Major modern nations are a compromise between both conditions. A liberal nation might have a leader with weaker powers elected by direct vote from every adult. A conservative nation might have a leader with strong powers, elected by successful businessmen or the aristocracy. Smaller societies tend to be more extreme than large ones, with successful examples of both totalitarianism and communism existing in small towns throughout the world. Among liberals, one of the popular ideas is that everyone should have some basic quality of life. This can be accomplished either through government (e.g. taxing according to earnings and then distributing according to need) or non-government (e.g. church or charities) mechanisms. Strong liberals prefer the first because it can be more fair and efficient, whereas more moderate liberals prefer the latter because it gives the donor more choice over who receives help. Personally, I lean more towards the liberal side because I feel there is significant evidence that when a program needs to cover a large majority (say 90+%) of the population, letting it be run by the government will make it more effective and less costly than letting it be run by a corporation.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
Clearly if lukifer is using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as you've defined them (rather than their meanings in conventional American politics), he is correct. My mistake.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  Be careful with meanings in "conventional American politics", because they shift from day to day. A position that's quite conservative one year (e.g. "force everyone to pay for health insurance") might become liberal the next.
  - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
    But never the reverse. Never /bitter.
    - jmillikin 13y ago
      Are you joking? Remember that Obama was against warrantless wiretaps during his candidacy. http://thisishistorictimes.com/2009/04/all-the-better-to-hear-you-with/ http://thisishistorictimes.com/2009/04/all-the-better-to-hea...
      - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
        Yes, that's my point. What had formerly been an exclusively "conservative" position became a matter of complete hegemony. Obama has pretty much pissed off most of the constituency that formerly called itself "liberal".
        yummyfajitas 13y ago
        Wiretapping and spying has been a "liberal" position (by the conventional definition, not necessarily lukifers) at least since the Clinton era. Republicans got on board with this only in the Bush era. Joe Biden's reaction to the Patriot Act was simply to protest that Ashcroft just copied his 1996 bill.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        In any international discussion, "liberal" used bare is going to be tremendously confusing - there is no "conventional definition", there are 10 different definitions each of which is mainstream in a different place. Wiretapping and spying was a Democratic position under Clinton, and the virtuous Republicans opposed it. Wiretapping and spying was a Republican position under Bush and the virtuous Democrats opposed it. Do you honestly expect, though, that there wasn't spying under Bush Sr., who had been head of the CIA? And obviously wiretapping and spying was J. Edgar Hoover's position under a host of administrations of both parties. Really, in recent times wiretapping and spying support/opposition in politicians seems to better track the power held by the politician than anything else.
sally85 13y ago
I'm not sure where you live, but American conservatives favor power in the states (i.e. decentralization). American liberals favor power in the federal government (i.e. centralization).
- jmillikin 13y ago
  Historically, the American federal government has been much more circumspect in its use of power against citizens than the state- and local-level governments. The NSA might be sniffing your packets, but the highway patrol is confiscating your cash and the local police department is shooting up your car.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I'm not sure where you live, but American conservatives favor power in the states American conservatives say that in the context of debates over federal engagement in certain types of government programs as a reason for opposing them there (which, incidentally, the same conservatives also oppose at the State level), but not about the kind of programs they support, like, say, national defense. The areas that American conservatives make the biggest stinks about state power are identical to the ones where they make the biggest stink about the function not being a proper role of government at all. > American liberals favor power in the federal government (i.e. centralization). Er, no, American liberals don't. American liberals are often characterized as supporting centralization by American conservatives when they support the federal government doing things that American conservatives don't think government should do at all. (They are, surprisingly enough, not accused by American conservatives of "opposing centralization" when they oppose the federal government doing things American conservatives think it should do, e.g., spending more money than the rest of the world combined on national defense.) Both American conservatives and American liberals tend to conduct multipronged efforts to get the same general policy preferences adopted at both state and federal levels (and tend to push all levers of power available, executive, legislative, and judicial -- and, at the state level, direct citizen initiative) at both levels. In addition, American conservatives tend to accuse American liberals of centralization whenever they push a policy conservatives don't approve of at the federal level (particularly through legislative action), of seeking to "overturn the will of the people" whenever they seek to overturn a policy conservatives approve of through judicial action, of dictatorship whenever they seek to implement policy conservatives oppose executive action, and of infringing on the authority of the executive when they seek to implement a policy conservatives disapprove of through legislative action, at least, when the executive is in hands viewed as friendlier to conservatives.
dllthomas 13y ago
I think you wrote "conservationism" where you meant "conservatism"...
- jmillikin 13y ago
  Hah! You're correct, I don't know where my mind was. Looks like it's too late to edit my post.
dllthomas 13y ago
This definition of "liberal" is frequently termed "classical liberal" for clarity. Both party-line Democrats and party-line Republicans draw on some of the ideas there when politically convenient. Libertarians probably have the best claim in the American political spectrum on a strict adherence to classical-liberal principles (arguably to the exclusion of other valuable principles, and arguably with an overly narrow focus in application - "policy debates should not appear one-sided", to borrow a phrase).

yummyfajitas 13y ago

Clearly if lukifer is using the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as you've defined them (rather than their meanings in conventional American politics), he is correct. My mistake.

jmillikin 13y ago
Be careful with meanings in "conventional American politics", because they shift from day to day. A position that's quite conservative one year (e.g. "force everyone to pay for health insurance") might become liberal the next.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  But never the reverse. Never /bitter.
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    Are you joking? Remember that Obama was against warrantless wiretaps during his candidacy. http://thisishistorictimes.com/2009/04/all-the-better-to-hear-you-with/ http://thisishistorictimes.com/2009/04/all-the-better-to-hea...
    - eli_gottlieb 13y ago
      Yes, that's my point. What had formerly been an exclusively "conservative" position became a matter of complete hegemony. Obama has pretty much pissed off most of the constituency that formerly called itself "liberal".
      - yummyfajitas 13y ago
        Wiretapping and spying has been a "liberal" position (by the conventional definition, not necessarily lukifers) at least since the Clinton era. Republicans got on board with this only in the Bush era. Joe Biden's reaction to the Patriot Act was simply to protest that Ashcroft just copied his 1996 bill.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        In any international discussion, "liberal" used bare is going to be tremendously confusing - there is no "conventional definition", there are 10 different definitions each of which is mainstream in a different place. Wiretapping and spying was a Democratic position under Clinton, and the virtuous Republicans opposed it. Wiretapping and spying was a Republican position under Bush and the virtuous Democrats opposed it. Do you honestly expect, though, that there wasn't spying under Bush Sr., who had been head of the CIA? And obviously wiretapping and spying was J. Edgar Hoover's position under a host of administrations of both parties. Really, in recent times wiretapping and spying support/opposition in politicians seems to better track the power held by the politician than anything else.

sally85 13y ago

I'm not sure where you live, but American conservatives favor power in the states (i.e. decentralization). American liberals favor power in the federal government (i.e. centralization).

jmillikin 13y ago
Historically, the American federal government has been much more circumspect in its use of power against citizens than the state- and local-level governments. The NSA might be sniffing your packets, but the highway patrol is confiscating your cash and the local police department is shooting up your car.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I'm not sure where you live, but American conservatives favor power in the states American conservatives say that in the context of debates over federal engagement in certain types of government programs as a reason for opposing them there (which, incidentally, the same conservatives also oppose at the State level), but not about the kind of programs they support, like, say, national defense. The areas that American conservatives make the biggest stinks about state power are identical to the ones where they make the biggest stink about the function not being a proper role of government at all. > American liberals favor power in the federal government (i.e. centralization). Er, no, American liberals don't. American liberals are often characterized as supporting centralization by American conservatives when they support the federal government doing things that American conservatives don't think government should do at all. (They are, surprisingly enough, not accused by American conservatives of "opposing centralization" when they oppose the federal government doing things American conservatives think it should do, e.g., spending more money than the rest of the world combined on national defense.) Both American conservatives and American liberals tend to conduct multipronged efforts to get the same general policy preferences adopted at both state and federal levels (and tend to push all levers of power available, executive, legislative, and judicial -- and, at the state level, direct citizen initiative) at both levels. In addition, American conservatives tend to accuse American liberals of centralization whenever they push a policy conservatives don't approve of at the federal level (particularly through legislative action), of seeking to "overturn the will of the people" whenever they seek to overturn a policy conservatives approve of through judicial action, of dictatorship whenever they seek to implement policy conservatives oppose executive action, and of infringing on the authority of the executive when they seek to implement a policy conservatives disapprove of through legislative action, at least, when the executive is in hands viewed as friendlier to conservatives.

dllthomas 13y ago

I think you wrote "conservationism" where you meant "conservatism"...

jmillikin 13y ago
Hah! You're correct, I don't know where my mind was. Looks like it's too late to edit my post.

dllthomas 13y ago

This definition of "liberal" is frequently termed "classical liberal" for clarity. Both party-line Democrats and party-line Republicans draw on some of the ideas there when politically convenient. Libertarians probably have the best claim in the American political spectrum on a strict adherence to classical-liberal principles (arguably to the exclusion of other valuable principles, and arguably with an overly narrow focus in application - "policy debates should not appear one-sided", to borrow a phrase).