Liberals and Conservative or How I Learned To Stop Sweating It and Loathe The Election

[hkellick]

You ever sit down and listen to the rhetoric? All of it? From all camps? From the Republicans, the Democrats AND the Independents? From the Conservatives, Centrists AND the Liberals? From the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jews, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Pagan, the etc. etc. From the Men and the Women? From every colored race and every color in between those colors?
It's a little disturbing and disgusting.
See, what I think places like Europe and Canada, our friends in "Democracy" fail to ever fully comprehend is just how many of us there are in these 50 states and how all of us have very different opinions on a WIDE range of religion. I don't feel places like Canada or England or Germany or France can truly comprehend because while they, too, have people with a range of opinions, I suspect they don't have quite as many.
Also, their history differs from us in some very important fashions.
Part of why other countries are doing better than us in certain fronts (such as environmental) is because they lack a certain diversity of thought that you can only find in America, in part, perhaps, because we not only allow but WANT people of every opinion to find a public forum for their thoughts. We take glee in the battle. For some of us, the argument is more academic, for others it's a gut feeling, but here in America, we urge our people to be truthful and honest. (Yes, I know the press isn't truly free. Yes, I know that the mainstream media does squash certain facts, certain perspectives. Know what? They get out anyways. Whether we're reading it through the power of the internet, through local zines, through discussions with other like-minded individuals, many if not all of the facts have gotten out.) And we, the little people, secretly cheer every time another fact gets leaked.
Some people across the world believe we take our freedoms for granted. And, in good times, we probably do. But, in a way, this last mostly four years has been an exercise in how free we truly are. Yes, after 9/11, Bush and his cronies took away alot of our rights and did hell to our foreign relations. We went to war without proper cause and we screwed up in a number of other important ways. But America is bouncing back. The Pariot Act is slowly but surely being gutted and as for the idea of attacking Iran or Korea or any other country? I suggest that, after the mess Iraq became, we will not go so quickly into war again.
It's interesting to see the number of reasons to or not to vote for a president. Some people believe that Kerry's attacks on the war on Iraq are actually attacks on the kids fighting the war. Some people believe that Bush does not have the intelligence required to be an effective president. Some people vote on the issues. Some vote on who is closer to god. Some vote on who probably looks better.
It seems to me that only in America do some of us still look for candidates who agree with anything from a modern look to a literal translation of the Bible. Does this happen in other countries? If so, I wasn't aware of that.
And then there's the constitution, our founding document. I was reading an article that stated that nowhere in the actual constitution or amendments does it ever say there should be a division of church and state, that that actually came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. I suck at Social Sciences, so I'm not sure if that's true, but I do know that nowhere in the constitution is your right to privacy, your right to do, say and be what you want so long as that harms no one else. But, then, our justices are forced to hear cases for things not strictly covered in the constitution all the time.
They say this race is a close one, that Kerry is still behind Bush in the polls, but only just. It seems like it's always a close race with presidential candidates and I'm not sure how much I believe these polls, anyways. How many voters aren't taking them. How many voters will find themselves screwed by one of the many scandals that may be going on or may yet go on (like the one indigoskynet just posted to, about a company that stood outside malls, government buildings et. al. asking for voter registration slips, but may have ripped up all of the democratic slips and mailed in the republican slips.)
Kerry may win. Bush may win. Neither may get the votes needed to be president. I don't know. I suspect neither do you. But, regardless, the whole process gives you quite a bit of food for thought.

Edit:Here's a question. When it all comes down to it, what IS the difference between Liberals and Conservatives? Is it that Liberals want bigger government and Conservatives want smaller? Is it that Liberals want more tax money to pay for more things like medicare and welfare and Conservatives want less taxes? Is it that Liberals are forward thinking and accepting of the future in terms of societal reform, science etc. and Conservatives are backwards thinking who believe we were better living in some time in the past? All and more?

Comments

[lawchicky.livejournal.com]

Theoretically, there is a difference between what we call "liberals" and what we call "conservatives." Liberal thinking dictates that the federal government should have more control over domestic things like social welfare, public health, and education. This is why democrats are usually accused of raising taxes in order to fund federal government sponsored programs. Republicans are more like strict Constitutionalists, in that they believe domestic programming should be handled individually by each state rather than by the central federal government. Of course, Bush's idea of creating a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage goes against the whole conservative principal, but like I said, this is how it's supposed to work IN THEORY.

Economically, the two camps differ greatly.. it's the battle between bottom-up economics and trickle down economics, and there's no solid evidence that either one of these theories work, especially when you can only institute them for a couple of years at a time until someone else comes into office and switches economic policies. Here's how it goes: Democrats believe in bottom-up economics. They think that by helping the lowest people in the economic chain you can help the economy. They would spend money to help the unemployed find jobs at the expense of taxpayers and business owners. They would find tax cuts for the poorest people, and create better welfare programs for people who cannot work. In theory, by giving money to the country's poorest people, they will wind up with more money to spend on more products, and will be contributing to the economy with their new expenditures. The best example of this is president Roosevelt's programs during the Great Depression, when the government hired thousands of unemployed people in order to give them much needed income. Consequently, conservatives opt for a trickle-down theory of economics. Conservatives believe in giving tax cuts to the middle and upper class, and creating policies that will be good for American businesses. In theory, if the businesses are making more money, they can expand. When businesses generate more income, they have to pay more taxes (simply by volume), and they can create more jobs for the unemployed and can provide better benefits for their employees.

The recent trend in outsourcing botches up BOTH economic plans, which is why outsourcing is such a big issue in this election. Of course, like I said, these are just the THEORIES that the partis have worked with over the last 50 years or so. In reality, it doesn't exactly work that way.

[angiepenguin.livejournal.com]

As far as 'Liberals' and 'Conservatives' go... there are many people of varying ideologies that use those labels in reference to themselves.

There are the Traditional Conservatives, the strongest example being Barry Goldwater. Traditional Conservatives want to decrease government spending, abhorr the welfare state, and generally have a foreign policy such that if a nation is not a phyiscal threat, then war isn't justified. They also like free markets, with little regulation and high competition.

There are people that are Neoconservatives (Neocons, for short) who embrace the idea of a welfare state and think it is necessary. They think of Americans as little more than children, and that without laws and big goverment there would be nihilism everywhere. They claim to like free markets, but mainly only give lip service to them. They want to increase regulation, and seem to favor giving exclusive contracts rather than letting companies bid. Their foreign policy is such that they want to fight wars for ideological reasons, rather than whether a country is a threat. Examples of Neoconservatives are John McCain and Dick Cheney.

Liberals... I would guess that there are factions within the liberals, but I'm not as familiar with the Democratic Party. Traditionally, liberals want bigger government to spend on social issues, and are in favor of the welfare state. As to foreign policy... I really don't know. Your average Democrat on the street seems to be against the war, while your average Democrat politician goes whichever way the wind blows. Democrats are not for the free market... they want to increase taxes and fees, and increase regulation.

If you're interested, this flash animation (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf) is a very good representation of what libertarians, anarchists, some Traditional Conservatives believe.

Difference between conservatives and liberals (updated)

[daisyconfused.livejournal.com]

The best explanation that I've encountered thus far for the difference between progressives* and conservatives is in a book called "Don't think of an elephant" by George Lakoff. His principal argument on this subject is that there are two family models that govern a person's world view -- the strict father model and the nurturant parent model.

Most people have both models at once, and one can dominate in certain situations, while the other dominates in other situations. Conservatives tend to have the strict father dominant, and progressives have the nurturant parent. But lots of people in the middle can be swayed from one model to the other, depending on the situation.

The strict father model begins with the assumption that "the world is a dangerous place and always will be, because there is evil out there. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they need to be made good ... through punishment, painful punishment, when they do wrong. This includes hitting them, and some authors on conservative child rearing recommend sticks, belts and wooden paddles on the bare bottom. Some authors suggest this start at birth ...." "What is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong."

The nurturant parent model, assumes that "Both parents are equally responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good and can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. [tikkun olam, anyone?] ...

What does nurturance mean? It means two things: empathy and responsibility. If you have a child, you have to know what every cry means. ... you have to take care of this child. ... All sorts of other values immediately follow from empathy and responsibility. ...

if you empathize with your child, you will provide protection. This comes into politics in many ways. What do you protect your child from? Crime and drugs, certainly. You also protect your child from cars without seat belts, from smoking, from poisonous additives in food. So progressive politics focuses on environmental protection, worker protection, and protection from disease. These are things that progressives want the government to protect their citizens from. But there are also terrorist attacks, which progressives have not been very good at talking about in terms of protection [although] protection is part of the progressive moral system."

Progressive values include:
"Empathy
Responsibility
Strength
Protection
Fairness
Fulfillment
Freedom
Opportunity
Prosperity
Community
Service
Cooperation
Trust
Honesty
Open Communication"

(From the DVD companion to the book)

Re: Difference between conservatives and liberals (updated)

[daisyconfused.livejournal.com]

Once we understand explicitly what our values are, we can start to define strategic initiatives -- road maps to get to where we want to go -- that can be described in instantly recognizable shorthand, such as "tort reform" or the New Apollo Project (http://www.apolloalliance.org/).

It is a mistake of progressives to believe that conservatives are "merely a bunch of crazies or mean and greedy -- or stupid -- people." Conservatives believe that social programs (nuturance and care) are immoral and that "do-gooders screw up the system" by creating dependency. But they are not against industry subsidies, homeland defense, or the Departments of Justice, Treasury and Commerce.

George Lakoff doesn't come out and directly say so, but the strict father model treats women as dependents in the same group as children. I could oppose the strict father model on that basis alone, but I have another reason: nurturance is essential to the success of a group, and thereby the success of the individuals within that group. It's not pure altruism; it is enlightened self-interest. Indeed, a recent Nobel prize was awarded that explained the role of enlightened self-interest as a guide of all economic decisions. Thus, older, conservative, social Darwinian models truly are regressive.

Anyway, please get "Don't Think of an Elephant" and read it. Also, read “The Great Divide: Retro vs Metro America" for free on-line at http://www.retrovsmetro.org/ . The online version lacks an introduction, but the bulk of the text is free.

:)

* Since "liberal" has become a "dirty" word for some people, I'm choosing to reframe the philosophy by using "progressive."