Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21 Posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1166 times:
After Alpha_1 said something in another forum a few months ago, it got me thinking. I'll paraphrase: something about the behaviour of extremists on both sides acting similarly towards a common issue.
It seems rather common place to observe how people respond as a clue to how they claim to be against what they would rather be seen as. Here @ the non-aviation forums, it is probably unanimous that the word "liberal" means wanting change, and the word "conservative" mean wanting no change.
Assuming this is correct, this draws only three main conclusions:
* either we are all liberals and there are no conservatives, or
* we are all conservative and there are no liberals, or
* (this is unlikely) we are neither.
Analysing the first conclusion renders the fact that we all want change. True or false? A standard religious/political liberal is one who puts themselves in the large bracket called "left of the middle". A standard religious/political conservative prefers a "right of the middle" standing. Boths side complain about current situations and events to the point where boths sides would like to see some (if not a lot of) change. Would not that mean that everyone from left to right is by definition a liberal? How or hownot? I don't care for why in this case.
Analysing the first conclusion renders the fact that we all want no changes to life what so ever. True or false? Let us take an example of liberals on the environment. Let us, for the sake of argument give in to all their demands, what then? Well, they got all the change that they wanted, so more than likely they would want to keep it that way. But wait, maintaining the same new reality would render a conservative attitude, yes? Indeed and I guarantee to you, if any liberal got what they wanted, they would not remain liberal at the thought of changing what they worked so hard to get -- by definition -- conservative.
Let's take another example, like the proposition of banning abortions. Currently, in the United States for example, it is legal for doctors to perform or women to have abortions. The issue of banning mostly sits on religious & moral conviction, but compared to the current law, it is change. Not just at the municipal or county level, but the federal and national level as well, it appears to be a very dramatic change -- by definition -- liberal.
Analysing the last conclusion, well it appears proven that we are both but not niether. In fact it seems that by the true definition of conservativism that we all are part of the club and in my opinion there is only one member who truely satisfies the requirement of being a true liberal: God.
Think about it, we all want change to a point, by then it should remain that way for a period of time, our mindset says forever. God will not wait for anyone, God changes everything, all the time, forever.
On the otherhand, there are the parts of life that point to the fact that God can be conservative. There are the sciences for one and mathematics for another. Then there are the few species of creatures on this planet that do not evolve out of isolation, like those on Madagascar, that place has been separated from Africa for millions of years. There is a conservative side of God like any.
So my conclusion is that we as people are bothconservative and liberal (no real separation), while it is God's way or the highway!
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1137 times:
The problem is that people break it down there are several ways that you can go on that issue. Since I am a Republican I see it in my own party.
There are several types of republican:
Here are the two that I see the most often.
Strictly political republican: Believes that one can do whatever they want as long as it is in their own house and not bothering anyone else. Yet on the other hand wants a smaller government because the current one is too large and intrusive.
Moral republican: Wants to legistlate morals in people, but conversly wants a smaller government. Hypocrites.
Thats not to say that this happens on the otherside but I'm not there.
Heres the way that I see Dems:
Want bigger governments that help everyone. Wants everyone to be safe and to legistale it. Wants everyone to depend on them so they stay in office. Wants the military to help the world even though they don't want to pay the military or equip it.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21480 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 1108 times:
The american idea of "liberal" and "conservative" is a national specialty, as far as I can see. And it seems to have its roots in the religious spectrum more than anything. Since religiously more "liberal" people tended to lean to the "left" side of the spectrum a little more often than the "conservatives" did, it began to be identified with the two entrenched political parties.
Traditionally, european "liberalism" is a very different political movement; It does have (or did once have, in the case of the german liberals ) a connection to the promotion of civil rights; But it also has an (increasing ) emphasis on self-sufficiency and a hands-off-government, thereby often leaning towards commercial lobbyism.
And since there are usually (much) more than just two relevant political parties in most european countries, the spectrum tends to be a little more complex and the definitions a little less blurred:
- Liberals (usually more concerned with lowering taxes than with individual liberties as such)
- Social Democrats (often close to labour unions; emphasis on civil rights)
- Conservatives (many of them calling themselves "christian", at least by name ; traditionally close ties to the industry)
- Greens (strongly reform-oriented; emphasis on ecology and human rights)
- Communists/Socialists (of varying degrees of dogmatism)
- National Chauvinists (usually appealing to the lowest possible instincts)
The latter two are usually shunned for coalition talks. But there have been exceptions.
I think it´s just a peculiarity of a two-party-system that makes the opposition of "liberal" vs. "conservative" so automatic. In Europe, there are many more aspects; "liberals" and "conservatives" are often on the same side of issues, jointly opposing greens and social democrats, with all of the above excluding socialists and chauvinists. Add local special-interest parties to the mix and things get really interesting...
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1103 times:
Good post, Klaus.
You're very astute. The opposing philosophies in American culture actually reach all the way back to the founding of our Nation. The Constitutional Convention that ratified our sacred document was made up of many men about as far apart on the spectrum as Rush Limbaugh and Bill Clinton today. (Patrick "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Henry despised the Constitution)
A great deal of right/left friction is amplified these days cause it's BIG BIG business....but our spectrum was built day by day since and before the birth of our country.