Liberalism vs. Conservatism

My view on the differences betwixt the two.

Published on March 21, 2004 By messybuu In Politics

Ever see The Odd Couple? That's what I think of when I think of the battle between liberals and conservatives. Both live together in the same country but with very different beliefs. After years of experiencing life on both sides of the fence, as well as observing my peers, I think I have found the basic differences of each group. Although my views aren't completely objective, I do think that they are accurate.

1. Government Intervention
Conservative View: Pessimistic. Conservatives think government should stick to its basic purposes.
Liberal View: Optimistic. Liberals think the government should play a more active role in people's lives.

2. Law Enforcement
Conservative View: Optimistic. Conservatives beileve a strong police force and military is necessary for security.
Liberal View: Pessimistic. Liberals believe the police and military abuse their power.

3. Majority Rule
Conservative View: Optimistic. Conservatives believe that the main power of government should be in the people.
Liberal View: Pessimistic. Liberals believe that government for those deemed fit to govern.

4. Favorite Branch
Conservative View: Legistlative Branch. Conservatives prefer to work through the legislative branch, which represents the people of the United States.
Liberal View: Judicial Branch. Liberals prefer to work through the judicial branch, the least democratic branch in the American government.

5. Religion
Conservative View: Pro-Christian. Conservatives support the views of Christian more than they do of other beliefs because the majority of Americans are Christian.
Liberal View: Anti-Christian. Liberals support the views of beliefs other than Christianity because they are in the minority.

6. Class
Conservative View: Rich. Conservatives support the upper classes of society because they are the ones who keep the government productive and wealthy.
Liberal View: Poor. Liberals support the lower classes of society for they are the ones who produce the ideas of the upper class.

7. Work Ethic
Conservative View: Strong. Conservatives believe that working hard leads to a successful life.
Liberal View: Weak. Liberals believe that luck, not hard work, determines who is successful and who isn't.

8. Social Welfare
Conservative View: Conservatives believe that people reap what they sow.
Liberal View: Liberals believe that it is the duty of the wealthy to aid the less wealthy.

9. Censorship
Conservative View: Conservatives believe censorship should regulate sex and violence.
Liberal View: Liberals believe censorship should regulate beliefs they feel are hateful.

10. International Affairs
Conservative View: Conservatives believe that America knows what's good for America.
Liberal View: Liberals believe that the interests of other countries come before America's.

11. Threats
Conservative View: War. Conservatives believe that war is necessary to combat threats.
Liberal View: Appeasement. Liberals believe that negotiating with enemies will end any threat.

12. Crime
Conservative View: Punishment. Conservatives believe that criminals should be punished for their crimes with incarceration.
Liberal View: Rehabilitation. Liberals believe that criminals should be rehabilitated for their crimes so that they can return to society.

I think I've accurately described each group, but there are always exceptions. It also might seem biased, but some of that might be because of how I describe certain beliefs as opposed to how they are often described by their own supporters.

Comments (Page 2)

nazgul

on Mar 22, 2004

War Is the Health of the State

bakerstreet

on Mar 22, 2004

"What is just as clear is that the middle class has not been consistently strong in the United States, and we can look at the period between Lincoln and Roosevelt as evidence of this."

Again, this depends on a statistical income to determine what is "middle class". If you think that way, there will always be a lower 10 or 20%, so there will always be lower classes. If instead you look at the middle class functionally, based upon their self reliance and comfort level, then you have a good concept of the level of "need". Of course there was poverty between Lincoln and Roosevelt, but when you rate that poverty against what we call poverty now, it is ridiculous. I think a great deal of the pseudo-panic used to influence Americans toward a social system uses income, not real "need", therefore imposing an ever-sliding scale.

"People fall on hard times, and I believe it is the compassionate and ethical thing to provide some padding so that nobody has to die on the street or work in a sweat shop like they used to in Lowell, Massachusettes."

But the padding is already there. Like you say, great steps have already been taken. If there are flaws in the system, they should be addressed to find out why such a small percentage of tax dollars ends up actually in the hands of the poor. Every election we are bombarded with panic that the system isn't broad enough, when in actuality it is rife with abuse and malfeasance. We have no idea how much good could be done. Instead of streamlining it, we just add more hungry bureaucracy.

"Secondly, I don't think liberals are trying to 'engineer' something, I think they are trying to let the people flourish."

I don't buy that. I think that the system as it stands is an industry unto itself. The 'social' system is a huge, self-perpetuating beast. The Federal government here absorbs what, like 50+% of the circulating cash?

"No American wants to be a dependent 'have a little' when there are so many 'have a lots'."

On the contrary, I don't see most middle to lower class Americans sitting around coveting wealth. None that I know do. I think a lot of people realize they could be wealthier if they sacrificed more important things, like home and family, and decide not to. For that reason I don't think handouts do the job. You give what is the most comfortable "poor" in the world the ability to live stable lives like I describe without putting any further effort into it.

"I will remind you that, as the 'skilled, able, independent' person you say you are, you do not stand out from anyone, and you are certainly not deserving of special recognition or special treatment by the democracy."

Nope, nor do I profess to be. I think conservative proponents of the free market spend a lot more time praising the average human being, respecting their abilities, instead of pretending that the poor are less evolved people who need to be taught by progressives how to think, work, and live.

Saint Ying

on Mar 22, 2004

Reply #15 By: stevendedalus - 3/22/2004 2:37:53 AM
Russell, one star too many; Saint, however, deserves ****[I guess you know where I'm coming from--in a "simplistic sort of way.]

I've posted here for merely a few hours, and you're already telling me I deserve s**t! How rude.

Where is this rating function? I'm clueless.

Boogerschnot

on Mar 22, 2004

if i follow your way of thinking , then im mostly conservative. its kinda boiring though if we put everything in the extremes. Why should everything be black or white. it really sucks since im sort of a gray kinda guy.

jeblackstar

on Mar 22, 2004

For instance, I'm a "conservative" according to your scale on Wars, but liberal on most everything else.

Well, I guess that's mostly true. We should go back to the French system where the Majority are conservatives and the minority are liberals.

Cheers

Aaron Brandt

on Mar 22, 2004

Saint I think the problem with your thinking is that, well.....its flawed. While it's great to think that all Americans would work hard if given the opportunity, we have to look at reality. I'm all for giving aid to those who need it, and those who actually use it well. Unfortunately, just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean that everyone will use it. A large number of people become welfare dependant. They would much rather take the freebies that are given to them rather than work for their money. To enlarge the system just makes the problem worse.
If we look at countries that have more social programs than we do, we can get a clearer picture. Waiting lists for medical procedures in the countries that have national healthcare are very long. The doctors there don't have the same incentives as in the US. They get the money no matter what, so they do the bare minimum and no more.
Almost everyone is like this though. Why work hard when you don't have to? If I get paid the same no matter how much work I do, and the government gives me job security, am I going to work to my full potential? It really is sad, but we have to admit that the only reason we prosper is because of selfishness. We work harder because it means we get more....we don't work harder to benefit society. Work ethic doesn't develop or stick unless you are recieving benefits from your hard work. If you look at the children of rich people, they get everything they want and never have to work for it.
I guess what I'm saying is, as a person who believes himself to stand very close to the center (but just an inch or so to the right), is that government support is great when it helps people to get off the ground, or when it provides basic needs to society. Unfortunately it gets out of control and allows people to leech off of the system and begin to bring it down.

Now, moving back to the topic of the thread, the issue with the classifications is that very few people are totally conservative or liberal. I had something else to put here, but its gone.......in conclusion, good points everyone!

Shulamite

on Mar 22, 2004

Are humans inherently good or inherently evil?

I believe we're inherently evil.
Am I oversimplifying when argue that basically conservatives hold with the pessimistic view and liberals with the optimistic? That "what's in it for me" has to be the primary motivator? "The only way to legislate morality in this country is to make it less expensive." -- I hate when I can't name a movie and character, but it's a great thought.

Some may argue that by selling the general public the warm-fuzzies about humans being inherently good, a party can buy votes and then do what they want. Its all about the pursuit of power after all, right? (e.g. "what's in it for me?") I'm not laying a blanket down here, I'm just throwing some conversation out there. People like warm-fuzzies and optimism and vote for 'em. People vote for entitlements because of the "what's in it for me" philosophy. It all adds up to power.

Can one not argue that power, not beliefs, is the generator for the American (and ALL) political machines?

I vote we have term limits.

Shulamite

on Mar 22, 2004

InfoGeek

on Mar 23, 2004

I believe that the desire for power is the driving force behind political machines regardless of size. And this could be a good thing. The question then comes to us, what is the reason the party wants power. There are some who want to acquire power to better the lives of those around them and this group believes it has the right way to go about it. And there are those who accumulate power to extend their influence over people for the groups benefit.
The accumulation of power, driven by beliefs is not the problem. The problem is what to do with the power once acquired.

IG

jeblackstar

on Mar 23, 2004

We have term limits, they're called the ballot box.

Cheers

bakerstreet

on Mar 23, 2004

" We have term limits, they're called the ballot box."

Unless you are Ted Kennedy, Strom Thurman or one of the many other career legislators. Then your term limit is called "life expectancy".

jeblackstar

on Mar 23, 2004

They can only be voted in as many times as the majority wants them in office. If they were bad politicians they would be voted out.

Cheers

Aaron Brandt

on Mar 23, 2004

Jetblackstar, I think what you meant to say was.....if people KNEW they were bad politicians they would be voted out.......don't worry I'll only do what follows once....

Jeers

bakerstreet

on Mar 23, 2004

" They can only be voted in as many times as the majority wants them in office. If they were bad politicians they would be voted out."

Apparently "mob rules" are bad for the homosexual minority who wants to get married, but it is acceptable for the minority in Ted Kennedy's domain who would like a chance to see a new face in office more than once every 50 years. "If you don't like it, move somewhere else" seems to be something you can use if you have enough influence in your pocket.

Oddly enough term limits are okay for Presidents, who have a lot less influence on the day-to-day life of the public.

messybuu

on Mar 24, 2004

Am I oversimplifying when argue that basically conservatives hold with the pessimistic view and liberals with the optimistic? That "what's in it for me" has to be the primary motivator? "The only way to legislate morality in this country is to make it less expensive." -- I hate when I can't name a movie and character, but it's a great thought.

I was thinking about that when I wrote it, and from what I see, conservatives aren't pessimistic, as they have faith that individuals can do whatever they want on their own, but I guess believing that greed is the prime factor for progress can be seen as cynical.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!