  |
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: Can someone define Conservative and Liberal for me? |
 |
|
|
Not being of the political mind set... I would like information on what the differences are between these two groups so when I choose to post a topic, I choose the right forum to post under.
I know what the words mean generally speaking... just want to be clear on the politcal grouping.
I am also curious what Right Wing and Left Wing means too. I hear these words a lot, but have no clue what either means in politics.
Thanx!!
Lisa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
These questions were asked in the Liberal and Conservative subforums.
This was the reply I gave for liberal:
--------
In Maurice Cranston's famous words, "a liberal is one who believes in liberty." This definition, at its core and spirit, has never changed and never will change. Liberty/freedom is the key concept that underlies the whole liberal structure. The very word liberal comes from the Latin liber, which means "free." Originally, this term could mean something to the effect of an irresponsible person or even a vagabond, but eventually it acquired a definition meaning something along the lines of tolerant. The Spanish were the first to use the term in a political context in 1812 when a faction during the Peninsular War against France called themselves "Liberales." Their Spanish of Constitution of 1812 was also very liberal in nature, and in my opinion it is a document in the liberal pantheon equivalent to the Declaration of Independence or the Declaration of the Rights of Man. So that's a quick background into the early history of liberalism. What are the tenets of liberalism?
Philosophically, liberalism is rooted in the Fundamental Principle of Liberalism (I'll call it FPL), which states that liberty is the normal human condition and so the burden to prove this false or take it away, either intellectually or in some other way, requires explanation. Basically, the onus is on those who want to eliminate liberty to show why. It is very important to understand that the FPL is in importance right up there with what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is to calculus. If you know the latter, then you know it's very important to calculus; as in, calculus would not mean anything without it. Liberalism is the same with FPL. The FPL has its roots with the arguments of John Locke (often called the 'Father of Liberalism'), who maintained that early human societies were gentle and untainted by the hustle-and-bustle lifestyle of civilizations.
Now that we're past the FPL, there are some basic tenets that you can "strangle" out of it. Among these are the fact that all humans are fundamentally good (you can't pick and choose), rational, and capable of change. Then we'd make some more elaborate but still basic assertions (or so I think; if you find them controversial I'd love to know why): liberalism implies equality, religious toleration, and constitutional government, among other things.
Personally, I am a liberal, and I consider liberalism to be something special, almost sacred. Over half of all nation-states in the world today are governed by liberal democracies (including the United States), and that's definitely something to be proud of if you are a liberal. It's also something to defend whenever it is threatened.
--------
And for conservatism:
--------
Conservatism was first given ideological rigor by the Irish philosopher Edmund Burke, who railed against what he saw as the excesses of the French Revolution. It is quite difficult to say precisely what it is, but there are some general features that one could call unique. Primary among these is the fact that conservatism respects the wisdom and experience of past generations, meaning it is somewhat reluctant to agree to abrupt and sudden change. This does not mean that conservatism is opposed to change, as is often erroneously thought, but only that it is more skeptical of the future than of the collective and shared values of the past. Other than that, I'm afraid one would have to define conservatism in its relation to other ideologies. In the past two centuries, conservative ideology has been mostly reactive and negativistic. It has not really offered any positive arguments to what it is and what it envisions the world as being; it has mostly just analyzed events and offered its take on them, but always in the context of events.
--------
"Right" and "left" date from the French Revolution, when the radical Jacobins sat to the left in the Legislative Assembly and the more moderate Girondins to the right. The distinction as it relates to the French Revolution is inappropriate because both the Jacobins and Girondins were fiercely liberal for their times, but gradually "left" came to be associated with leftist movements (liberalism, communism, and so on) and "right" with their reactionary counterparts (conservatism, fascism, and so on). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CryxicKiller wrote: | These questions were asked in the Liberal and Conservative subforums.
This was the reply I gave for liberal:
--------
In Maurice Cranston's famous words, "a liberal is one who believes in liberty." This definition, at its core and spirit, has never changed and never will change. Liberty/freedom is the key concept that underlies the whole liberal structure. The very word liberal comes from the Latin liber, which means "free." Originally, this term could mean something to the effect of an irresponsible person or even a vagabond, but eventually it acquired a definition meaning something along the lines of tolerant. The Spanish were the first to use the term in a political context in 1812 when a faction during the Peninsular War against France called themselves "Liberales." Their Spanish of Constitution of 1812 was also very liberal in nature, and in my opinion it is a document in the liberal pantheon equivalent to the Declaration of Independence or the Declaration of the Rights of Man. So that's a quick background into the early history of liberalism. What are the tenets of liberalism?
Philosophically, liberalism is rooted in the Fundamental Principle of Liberalism (I'll call it FPL), which states that liberty is the normal human condition and so the burden to prove this false or take it away, either intellectually or in some other way, requires explanation. Basically, the onus is on those who want to eliminate liberty to show why. It is very important to understand that the FPL is in importance right up there with what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is to calculus. If you know the latter, then you know it's very important to calculus; as in, calculus would not mean anything without it. Liberalism is the same with FPL. The FPL has its roots with the arguments of John Locke (often called the 'Father of Liberalism'), who maintained that early human societies were gentle and untainted by the hustle-and-bustle lifestyle of civilizations.
Now that we're past the FPL, there are some basic tenets that you can "strangle" out of it. Among these are the fact that all humans are fundamentally good (you can't pick and choose), rational, and capable of change. Then we'd make some more elaborate but still basic assertions (or so I think; if you find them controversial I'd love to know why): liberalism implies equality, religious toleration, and constitutional government, among other things.
Personally, I am a liberal, and I consider liberalism to be something special, almost sacred. Over half of all nation-states in the world today are governed by liberal democracies (including the United States), and that's definitely something to be proud of if you are a liberal. It's also something to defend whenever it is threatened.
--------
And for conservatism:
--------
Conservatism was first given ideological rigor by the Irish philosopher Edmund Burke, who railed against what he saw as the excesses of the French Revolution. It is quite difficult to say precisely what it is, but there are some general features that one could call unique. Primary among these is the fact that conservatism respects the wisdom and experience of past generations, meaning it is somewhat reluctant to agree to abrupt and sudden change. This does not mean that conservatism is opposed to change, as is often erroneously thought, but only that it is more skeptical of the future than of the collective and shared values of the past. Other than that, I'm afraid one would have to define conservatism in its relation to other ideologies. In the past two centuries, conservative ideology has been mostly reactive and negativistic. It has not really offered any positive arguments to what it is and what it envisions the world as being; it has mostly just analyzed events and offered its take on them, but always in the context of events.
--------
"Right" and "left" date from the French Revolution, when the radical Jacobins sat to the left in the Legislative Assembly and the more moderate Girondins to the right. The distinction as it relates to the French Revolution is inappropriate because both the Jacobins and Girondins were fiercely liberal for their times, but gradually "left" came to be associated with leftist movements (liberalism, communism, and so on) and "right" with their reactionary counterparts (conservatism, fascism, and so on). |
Thank you for reposting and explaining all of this for me. I appreciate it.
So if I had to lump myself into a group... I guess it would be liberal... would that also mean I was a left winger too? (They seem to be about the same).
What about an anarchist... would that be a seperate group all togehter... or partly libral? I personally would love to see government overthrown and start from scratch... but not with violence at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, many of these questions will be colored by semantics. In many places, being a liberal means you're a de facto left-winger as well, or that is the perception. The terms "left" and "right" are simply political expedients; by themselves they are weak and do a horrible job at capturing the underlying ideological and philosophical complexities. It's probably much better if you just say "I'm liberal" or "I'm conservative" rather than "I'm a left-winger" or "I'm a right-winger." The latter two designations are mostly pejorative and should be ignored.
Some anarchists would take offense with the way that you've defined their belief system. If we do define it as a desire for the absence of government, then anarchists would not be liberal because they would be denying liberal methodology (social contract theories of people like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) and because modern liberalism, overwhelmingly the dominant form of liberalism today, gives governments certain responsibilities towards helping their citizens. I should clarify that simply denying liberal methodology does not mean that you deny liberal principles, so the first point does not necessarily exclude anarchists from also being liberals, but denying the second point, that government has important duties to its citizens, does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
As an example of what CryxicKiller is trying to say in Australia the "liberal" party is the right wing group.
I like the cartesian plane which has authoritarian and libertarian on one axis and communism and capitlism on the other.
Anarchists are libertarian left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CryxicKiller wrote: | Unfortunately, many of these questions will be colored by semantics. In many places, being a liberal means you're a de facto left-winger as well, or that is the perception. The terms "left" and "right" are simply political expedients; by themselves they are weak and do a horrible job at capturing the underlying ideological and philosophical complexities. It's probably much better if you just say "I'm liberal" or "I'm conservative" rather than "I'm a left-winger" or "I'm a right-winger." The latter two designations are mostly pejorative and should be ignored.
Some anarchists would take offense with the way that you've defined their belief system. If we do define it as a desire for the absence of government, then anarchists would not be liberal because they would be denying liberal methodology (social contract theories of people like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) and because modern liberalism, overwhelmingly the dominant form of liberalism today, gives governments certain responsibilities towards helping their citizens. I should clarify that simply denying liberal methodology does not mean that you deny liberal principles, so the first point does not necessarily exclude anarchists from also being liberals, but denying the second point, that government has important duties to its citizens, does. |
Phew... I am starting to view these political labels very much like I view algebra 
I am sure the majority of my views and desires are liberal... with a dash of anarchy (I do believe that government should have important duties to we the people... but would love to see this entire government dissolved and a new one put into place by we the people... so I am not sure where that leaves me label wise).
Thank you again for your explanations.
Lisa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CryxicKiller
Known Associate
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 332
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| As I see it now, your qualms mainly concern the performance of the government, and this government of the United States specifically. You are not opposed to government in principle, correct? If so, then yes you can continue to identify yourself as a liberal. Go us liberals! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MissLisa
Not a Newbie
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Virginia
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| CryxicKiller wrote: | | As I see it now, your qualms mainly concern the performance of the government, and this government of the United States specifically. You are not opposed to government in principle, correct? If so, then yes you can continue to identify yourself as a liberal. Go us liberals! |
You are absolutely correct in your observations. ohh how nice CryxicKiller, we do have a common ground between us!! 
Have a great day, and again, thank you for your continued sharing of information!
Lisa |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
