PDA

View Full Version : Liberal conservatism



klaatu
09-03-2006, 09:26 AM
As per

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


Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines the classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and, sometimes, religious values with liberal ideas, especially on economic issues (see economic liberalism, which advocates free market capitalism).

Liberal conservatism usually takes hold among conservatives in countries where liberal economic ideas are considered traditional, and therefore conservative.

In countries with large liberal conservative movements that have entered the political mainstream, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" may become synonymous (as in Australia), or they may be redefined such that liberal conservatives keep one of them and the other is taken up by a different group (as in the United States, where liberal conservatives use the term "conservative," and "liberal" is generally used to refer to American liberalism, a social liberal movement).

The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, for example in the writings of Russell Kirk).

Liberal conservative political parties exist in a number of countries, and they are usually most entrenched in Anglo-Saxon cultures.

toby
09-03-2006, 09:35 AM
And your point? Just like to play word games? LOL

klaatu
09-03-2006, 09:35 AM
In a strange way .. isnt this taking place here in America ... in both major parties from two different directions?

NeoCons have broken a way from paleoconservatism adopting many of the big Government intrusions that have rankled traditional conservatives of the past ..

While Liberals have become more of the traditionalist ... protesting the policies of the big brother intrusions of the NeoCons ..

Thus ...the liberals are becoming the Traditional Conservatives protecting established wing policy and the NeoCons are pushing for change of direction .... adopting broader Government policies ....

So from the Democrats we have Consevative Liberals .....

From the NeoCon republicans we have Liberal Conservatives.....

As John Lennon once said ... "Strange Days indeed"

toby
09-03-2006, 09:42 AM
No I don't see that.

But you are also compairing a dictionary defination of a political word with the common useage of the word by a political party and they are not the same.

toby
09-03-2006, 09:44 AM
As John Lennon once said

I am the walrus,
I am the walurs,
ca cu ca cooo

I am you and you are me
and we are all together, now

klaatu
09-03-2006, 09:59 AM
No I don't see that.

But you are also compairing a dictionary defination of a political word with the common useage of the word by a political party and they are not the same.


So where are we to get our definitions from Toby .... George Bush or A Dictionary?
So as long as GW tells you one thing.. you blindly follow that path? :pke:

toby
09-03-2006, 10:21 AM
There are general useage of words and very specific dictionary defination of what word means, they are not the same thing. That is why you argue on the fact the the US is not a democracy, your ignore the general usesage of the word and try to make it specific.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-06-2006, 04:22 PM
Liberalism used to be different from what it is today. I wouldn't say classical liberalism and libertarianism are synomous, but they are in the same basic political sphere. Modern American conservatism is a result of a mix of the old liberal elements that died off whenever social liberalism took hold and the old conservatives (like the federalists). Social liberalism practically took over the liberal movement.

So it was a pretty odd mix.


Many people don't believe me, but in many places in the world liberalism and conservatism are considered synonomous. There are, of course, the hyper-nationalists and such who diametrically oppose them and are considered conservative also, however. Liberalism doesn't mean the left, and conservatism isn't considered the right.... they are philosophies, not the attitude of whether or not someone currently wants change. This meaning has albeit dissapeared in America, however, and I see little use in beating a dead horse.

Jarod
09-07-2006, 08:50 AM
classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and, sometimes, religious values
-----------

This is the type of conservatism that really gets me, tradition, authotity and religous values should always be challanged and questioned.

klaatu
09-07-2006, 09:57 AM
classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and, sometimes, religious values
-----------

This is the type of conservatism that really gets me, tradition, authotity and religous values should always be challanged and questioned.

Well then you should be questioning your own liberal ideologies and authorities..which have become entrenched in tradition.

uscitizen
09-07-2006, 10:06 AM
Can progressive liberals be conservative ?

Jarod
09-07-2006, 11:20 AM
Well then you should be questioning your own liberal ideologies and authorities..which have become entrenched in tradition.

I agree and often do!

uscitizen
09-07-2006, 11:27 AM
I agree and often do!

that is why I am not sure that liberal and conservative go together. Is change conservative ?

Jarod
09-07-2006, 11:37 AM
Liberals embrace change when they deem it for the better.

Conservatives automatically assume change will not be for the better and resist any change.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-07-2006, 05:21 PM
That's a massively oversimplistic way to view things.

klaatu
09-08-2006, 06:22 AM
Well ... Conservatives advocate changing the Education System, School Vouchers .... more privatization .., where liberals resist the change and favor an increase in funding to the existing institution.., in this instance who is progressive and who is traditional?
Health Care; many Conservatives favor Tax Deductable Health Care Savings Accounts ..which is a newer concept, while Liberals favor a Nationalized Health Care Plan controlled by the Fedeeral Government, a concept that has been pushed since the Harry Truman Days. On this issue who is the prgressive and who is the traditionalist?
Social Security; an Institution that has been around since FDR ... Liberals do not want to touch it...period. Conservatives favor a gradual privitizatio... where in the future people will have more control over their investment. Liberals see SS as a program... Government Give Away, Conservatives see it as an investment for the future. Who is the Progressive and who is the traditionalist?

FUCK THE POLICE
09-09-2006, 05:46 PM
Liberalism is a philsophy that liberty and the free markets should reign, and people should have free will (although some people who define themselves as liberal are really socialists, most liberals fall into this, albeit many loosely). Leftism is the philosophy that we need change.

The two are not the same.

AnyOldIron
09-11-2006, 04:05 AM
Liberalism is a philsophy that liberty and the free markets should reign,

This is economic liberalism. It is possible to be a social liberal, ie be socially liberal yet economically socialist.

And also, liberalism isn't a philosophy at all. Ideas, notions, concepts aren't philosophy. Philosophy is the methodology by which we analyse and comprehend arguments. Liberalism is a political concept, or movement.

AnyOldIron
09-11-2006, 04:16 AM
Leftism is the philosophy that we need change.

Roflmao!

It is funny when capitalists ignore the myriad of problems with their own ideology.

Liberalism as a movement has its roots in the application of reason, something not attributable to modern capitalist absolutists.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-11-2006, 05:12 AM
Leftism is the philosophy that we need change.

Roflmao!

It is funny when capitalists ignore the myriad of problems with their own ideology.

Liberalism as a movement has its roots in the application of reason, something not attributable to modern capitalist absolutists.

That's retarded.

It's amazing how socialists believe a system that has failed in every single country that has ever tried the system can still work. It is impossible for one to be a liberal and a socialist at the same time. It's like oil and water. If you don't believe in freedom, then how can you be a liberal?

AnyOldIron
09-12-2006, 05:41 AM
It's amazing how socialists believe a system that has failed in every single country that has ever tried the system can still work.

Except in Europe, particularly Scandanavia, the UK, France etc..... Mixed economies have succeeded

We have ignored capitalisms failings since Dickensian times... Argentina, Russia, Indonesia, the great depression, IMF policy and the myriad of economic disasters extant today.

Capitalists adhere to the 'no true Scotsman' defence, 'Oh, it wasn't capitalism's fault, it was corruption / interference etc etc etc.


It is impossible for one to be a liberal and a socialist at the same time. It's like oil and water. If you don't believe in freedom, then how can you be a liberal?

It is extremely niaive to equate capitalism with freedom. As Bertrand Russell said:

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

It is also a misunderstanding of liberalism that you equate it with some absolute or natural freedom. That is anarchism, not liberalism. Liberalism is the application of reason in social and economic issues.

Jarod
09-12-2006, 09:44 AM
Well ... Conservatives advocate changing the Education System, School Vouchers .... more privatization .., where liberals resist the change and favor an increase in funding to the existing institution.., in this instance who is progressive and who is traditional?
Health Care; many Conservatives favor Tax Deductable Health Care Savings Accounts ..which is a newer concept, while Liberals favor a Nationalized Health Care Plan controlled by the Fedeeral Government, a concept that has been pushed since the Harry Truman Days. On this issue who is the prgressive and who is the traditionalist?
Social Security; an Institution that has been around since FDR ... Liberals do not want to touch it...period. Conservatives favor a gradual privitizatio... where in the future people will have more control over their investment. Liberals see SS as a program... Government Give Away, Conservatives see it as an investment for the future. Who is the Progressive and who is the traditionalist?


Sure some Conservatives advocate changing things, Back to the way they used to be!

klaatu
09-12-2006, 04:25 PM
Sure some Conservatives advocate changing things, Back to the way they used to be!

Nonsense .. and try to explain yourself .... or better yet.. explain of what that I outlined will bring things back to the way they used to be?

And furthermore ... bringing the educational system back to the way it used to be might not be a bad idea ... you know .. the days when we actually were the best. When we focused on the 3 R's rather than the "feel good" bullshit. The days when it was affordable to choose between the local private school and the local public school. Allowing Parents a real choice... is that a progressive idea?

Jarod
09-13-2006, 09:18 AM
Nonsense .. and try to explain yourself .... or better yet.. explain of what that I outlined will bring things back to the way they used to be?

And furthermore ... bringing the educational system back to the way it used to be might not be a bad idea ... you know .. the days when we actually were the best. When we focused on the 3 R's rather than the "feel good" bullshit. The days when it was affordable to choose between the local private school and the local public school. Allowing Parents a real choice... is that a progressive idea?


You just proved my point for me, thank you...


But you forget that the old days also included segergation and exclusion of huge percentages of people from education...! Only reciently have we come close to true universal education.

Damocles
09-13-2006, 09:35 AM
You just proved my point for me, thank you...


But you forget that the old days also included segergation and exclusion of huge percentages of people from education...! Only reciently have we come close to true universal education.
Nobody wants to go back to segregation, at least nobody credible. That is a strawman.

Damocles
09-13-2006, 09:38 AM
Marching forward to change without reviewing for benefit can bring an extremely negative result. Evaluating results and comparing may show that the change was not beneficial. Sticking with the same marching pattern regardless of failure is supposedly not "liberal" yet in education it is exactly what they work toward.

Pretending that one works toward change and the other does not is a false limitation, they both work towards different changes.

Jarod
09-13-2006, 09:45 AM
Marching forward to change without reviewing for benefit can bring an extremely negative result. Evaluating results and comparing may show that the change was not beneficial. Sticking with the same marching pattern regardless of failure is supposedly not "liberal" yet in education it is exactly what they work toward.

Pretending that one works toward change and the other does not is a false limitation, they both work towards different changes.



I agree we should never blindly march forward... "First, do no harm." But sticking with the past just because its the way we have always done it is never a good reason for sticking with the past! I know noone wants to go back to seggergation, but when people cite how much better the education system used to work, they dont realize that the "old" system did not face the same challanges the current system faces.

Damocles
09-13-2006, 09:54 AM
I agree we should never blindly march forward... "First, do no harm." But sticking with the past just because its the way we have always done it is never a good reason for sticking with the past! I know noone wants to go back to seggergation, but when people cite how much better the education system used to work, they dont realize that the "old" system did not face the same challanges the current system faces.
Those "challenges" are exactly what need to be reviewed. Does it benefit all students to "mainstream" students? How does it benefit them? etc.

What kind of choice should we provide to parents?

Which party works toward change in this environment, working towards ensuring the poor have the same ability to send their children to outside schools they otherwise could not afford?

Jarod
09-13-2006, 11:24 AM
Those "challenges" are exactly what need to be reviewed. Does it benefit all students to "mainstream" students? How does it benefit them? etc.

What kind of choice should we provide to parents?

Which party works toward change in this environment, working towards ensuring the poor have the same ability to send their children to outside schools they otherwise could not afford?



I am all for the school voucher system, as long as it does not take funding away from public schools. The way it has been proposed by the Bush klan would bankrupt the public school system, whitch I truely belive is there goal. If there were a way, and I belive there is, to have high quality public schools and a voucher system, I would be all for it.

I belive however the effect of the Bush/Republican voucher plan would be to have 100 students to one teacher using a computer based basic level educational system that would result in the poor only haveing the chance to get a very simple education while the rich would suplament the voucher and send there kids to schools that would be top notch.

Damocles
09-13-2006, 11:31 AM
I am all for the school voucher system, as long as it does not take funding away from public schools. The way it has been proposed by the Bush klan would bankrupt the public school system, whitch I truely belive is there goal. If there were a way, and I belive there is, to have high quality public schools and a voucher system, I would be all for it.

I belive however the effect of the Bush/Republican voucher plan would be to have 100 students to one teacher using a computer based basic level educational system that would result in the poor only haveing the chance to get a very simple education while the rich would suplament the voucher and send there kids to schools that would be top notch.
Bullpucky it would "bankrupt" the school system. First of all, if every single student left to go to private school the public school system would have exactly 50% of its funding under the programs put forward by the Republicans....

In fact if people left for Private schools rather than used them to transfer to better performing schools in their district there is actually more money per student in the Public Schools under the Republican plan...

(BTW - It actually refutes the whole "Conservatives Fight Every Change" argument, and you must notice you have begun arguing whether or not the change would be good rather than the "Rs hate change" POV?)

Jarod
09-13-2006, 12:19 PM
Sure they hate change.. they want America to go to a place where there was no public school!

Jarod
09-13-2006, 12:20 PM
Do you have a cite to that 50% number.

As you are likely aware it costs more per student to educate less students.

If you are educating 10 students it costs more than if you are educating 100...

Damocles
09-13-2006, 12:20 PM
Sure they hate change.. they want America to go to a place where there was no public school!
Rubbish. Total rubbish.

Damocles
09-13-2006, 12:22 PM
Do you have a cite to that 50% number.

As you are likely aware it costs more per student to educate less students.

If you are educating 10 students it costs more than if you are educating 100...
It comes from the law as proposed in Colorado. Each student would get 1/2 of what the school would normally receive, the other half remained in the original district.

And yes, less students per teacher means higher cost. However are you aware that most of the higher cost per student today is spent on administration rather than on the students?

Jarod
09-13-2006, 12:38 PM
It comes from the law as proposed in Colorado. Each student would get 1/2 of what the school would normally receive, the other half remained in the original district.

And yes, less students per teacher means higher cost. However are you aware that most of the higher cost per student today is spent on administration rather than on the students?



I think I could be for that... Its NOT what was proposed her by Governor Bush.

IHateGovernment
09-13-2006, 01:11 PM
The conservative movement in this country is not defined by solely trying to turn back the clock. It would be a socially conservative move to outlaw something like Salvia.

This is a drug that has been legal for years and has never been illegal. Making it so would be a forward looking move not a harkening back to yesteryear. Yet such a move would be characterized as conservative.

Jarod
09-13-2006, 01:19 PM
Not on every issue, but some!

IHateGovernment
09-13-2006, 01:56 PM
And that is why we must avoid making blanket statements. That is why I objected so much to Midcan's assertion that the only stance conservatives have is to be against something.

Partisan blinders.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2006, 03:14 PM
It's amazing how socialists believe a system that has failed in every single country that has ever tried the system can still work.

Except in Europe, particularly Scandanavia, the UK, France etc..... Mixed economies have succeeded

We have ignored capitalisms failings since Dickensian times... Argentina, Russia, Indonesia, the great depression, IMF policy and the myriad of economic disasters extant today.

Capitalists adhere to the 'no true Scotsman' defence, 'Oh, it wasn't capitalism's fault, it was corruption / interference etc etc etc.


It is impossible for one to be a liberal and a socialist at the same time. It's like oil and water. If you don't believe in freedom, then how can you be a liberal?

It is extremely niaive to equate capitalism with freedom. As Bertrand Russell said:

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

It is also a misunderstanding of liberalism that you equate it with some absolute or natural freedom. That is anarchism, not liberalism. Liberalism is the application of reason in social and economic issues.


The root word of "liberalism" is "liberty", Ayn.

And I'd hardly call a free economy "tyranny". That's ludicrous. Any tyrrany that's ever resulted was the result of local or extreme circumstances, or the government.

EVERY economy in the world is a mixed economy, except for Somalia's. To equate a mixed economy with a socialist one is ridiculous, and I'd hardly call the economies of Germany and Italy socialist. Maybe highly regulated capitalism (where the economy doesn't function well, and the quality of life is lower by nearly every managable standard), not socialism. The UK currently has a GDP per capita 10,000 dollar less than it's less regulated neighbor Ireland, in case you were wondering.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2006, 03:16 PM
Even the soviet union had a mixed economy... no matter how badly you oppress the people and forbid them from trade, trade will result. This wasn't the major part of their economy, but I'd be willing to be that in most communist countries at least 10-20% of their economy is trade.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2006, 03:18 PM
Sure they hate change.. they want America to go to a place where there was no public school!

We want to have an even playing field for all schools. If you yourself believe the school system is so weak that it will fail once on an even playing field with private ones, then why are you supporting them?

IHateGovernment
09-13-2006, 03:20 PM
One of the paradoxes of Communism that I saw when I was one was that for communism to work and eliminate the mixed economy was to eliminate world trade. However to do this required bringing all of the worlds commodities under the control of a single government. This is why I advocated a combination of Trotskyism and Nationalism.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2006, 03:28 PM
Even I do not advocate an anarchaic market... there are many special circumstances that need to be dealt with, in which certain people are certainly exploiting certain parts of the human pshyche and such. This is why an economy can't be explained by an equation as many economists like to do it, they ignore the human factor, that humans aren't perfect.

For instance, the social programs I advocate are probably more generous than the ones we have now. National health insurance, a Guarteed minimum income... why, if I told a conservative who had never heard about my free trade views and such they'd probably call me a damnable socialist. I simply believe many liberals have erred from liberalism and simply blame the rich and the markets unfairly for some things that aren't truly their fault, and have an utter misunderstanding of how an economy works. I know this, being a former socialist myself. It's a constant feeling of "if we'd just completely ignore human instinct and act in unison this way, then we could solve so many problems!". It just practically never works that way. For instance, people who say that you need to only buy American aren't really helping out the American economy. Helping out industries that we aren't good out only gives them a false hope on the world market, and encourages people to train in that area, whenever everyone could be helped out in America more if we'd simply allow them to train in an area we ARE good at and export that which we are bad at overseas. Even if we are better at nothing than anyone else, protecting our economy would make us worse off than simply concentrating on what we're good at and letting everyone else do the same.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2006, 03:33 PM
You see, I constantly get blamed for "loving the rich" and hating the "common man" whenever I'm simply trying to treat everyone equally and not take sides.

IHateGovernment
09-13-2006, 03:45 PM
The free market will inevitably lead to inequity in society and despite what many liberals think it will usually come about due to higher intelligence, creativity and drive more often than violent subjugation.

FUCK THE POLICE
09-13-2006, 05:02 PM
However, I do realize that it's hard to tell a starving, dying man this. Which is why I support programs to support the poor and to support people who are under circumstances they had no control over.

klaatu
09-13-2006, 05:16 PM
We want to have an even playing field for all schools. If you yourself believe the school system is so weak that it will fail once on an even playing field with private ones, then why are you supporting them?

*whistles* simple ....but very effective ..... ;)

Hermes Thoth
04-05-2007, 02:56 PM
The only real difference is freedom versus totalitarianism. And both main parties are infected with totalitarianism. It makes little difference if government takes over business, or business takes over government. The end result is an omnipotent self perpetuating hegemony. True freedom lovers are not represented in either party.

Jarod
04-05-2007, 03:15 PM
As per

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


Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism that combines the classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and, sometimes, religious values with liberal ideas, especially on economic issues (see economic liberalism, which advocates free market capitalism).

Liberal conservatism usually takes hold among conservatives in countries where liberal economic ideas are considered traditional, and therefore conservative.

In countries with large liberal conservative movements that have entered the political mainstream, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" may become synonymous (as in Australia), or they may be redefined such that liberal conservatives keep one of them and the other is taken up by a different group (as in the United States, where liberal conservatives use the term "conservative," and "liberal" is generally used to refer to American liberalism, a social liberal movement).

The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, for example in the writings of Russell Kirk).

Liberal conservative political parties exist in a number of countries, and they are usually most entrenched in Anglo-Saxon cultures.

Sounds like the worst of both worlds to me!

FUCK THE POLICE
04-06-2007, 07:28 AM
Except in Europe, particularly Scandanavia, the UK, France etc..... Mixed economies have succeeded

We have ignored capitalisms failings since Dickensian times... Argentina, Russia, Indonesia, the great depression, IMF policy and the myriad of economic disasters extant today.

Capitalists adhere to the 'no true Scotsman' defence, 'Oh, it wasn't capitalism's fault, it was corruption / interference etc etc etc.


None of the nations listed are socialist. They are all capitalist. And none of them are even as succesful as the US in any case.


It is extremely niaive to equate capitalism with freedom. As Bertrand Russell said:

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate”

It is also a misunderstanding of liberalism that you equate it with some absolute or natural freedom. That is anarchism, not liberalism. Liberalism is the application of reason in social and economic issues.

Liberalism is liberty.

Hermes Thoth
04-06-2007, 07:33 AM
Liberalism is liberty.


Is that what Elmo said when you pulled his string?

http://www.mattkirkland.com/ursum/i/elmo1.jpg

FUCK THE POLICE
04-06-2007, 07:34 AM
*whistles* simple ....but very effective ..... ;)

Actually, it's really something of a strawman, now that I think about it.

FUCK THE POLICE
04-06-2007, 07:35 AM
Is that what Elmo said when you pulled his string?

http://www.mattkirkland.com/ursum/i/elmo1.jpg

I've never pulled his string, so I wouldn't know.

Hermes Thoth
04-06-2007, 07:37 AM
I've never pulled his string, so I wouldn't know.


Then who did?

Damocles
04-06-2007, 07:38 AM
Nobody, you have to press his hand. Right WM?

uscitizen
04-06-2007, 11:21 AM
I thought you tickled his belly ?

FUCK THE POLICE
04-08-2007, 02:54 PM
I thought you tickled his belly ?

A common misconception.