This thread is initially for those who identify themselves as liberals to tell us why they are liberal and how they define liberalism. Moderates and conservatives are welcome to ask questions or raise critical points for discussion in general terms - but let's try to keep it civil!

I think it means I run around hugging trees. And I like fire. I say this because I've been called a "tree-hugging flaming liberal". This before I even considered myself a liberal. So, I was labeled and it stuck.

I hate labels.

Why I am a liberal? That's the easiest question I've seen yet. Because I believe the "common" person deserves a fair shake at American opportunity, and that liberals are concerned with more than just the almighty dollar.

I believe liberal is one of those unfortunate words in the English language that has completely lost its meaning.

In the original "liberal vs conservative" meaning liberal implies one is open to new ideas. That is why I consider myself a liberal. In the more modern sense it has come to mean one who believes the government should be a force of progress and should actively fight many of the problems its citizens face, rather than leaving such issues up to the private sector. I share this view also, though I understand the concerns of those who disagree with it.

Like Turnea, I think the true definitions of liberal and conservative have been distorted over the years.

Originally, I think that a liberal was wanting major change, while conservatives wanted to return to the way things were.

--cheers

I am a liberal when it comes to social issues. I believe in public libraries open to everyone; I believe in public education open to everyone; I believe in public parks and public recreation.

I am a liberal when it comes to the regulation of business. I do not believe business interests are necessarily the same interests of the people. I do not trust business to keep our interests at heart. I want tight *and effective* oversight and regulation.

I do not believe government is always inefficient. I do not believe Federal Express or UPS could deliver a letter for what the USPS charges. I believe the attempt of the Clinton administration, as led by Gore, to make government more efficient started to become an attainable goal and that, from ideology, the Republicans could not let this happen.

I am a liberal; it annoys conservatives.

This sounds very well and good. But how do you propose to pay for all these "public" goodies. I am curious about another subject. Why do many liberals support abortion, yet are against capital punishment. How can you support murder of innocent children, yet be against the proper punishment of convicted criminals? I would like a true liberal to explain this to me

First, I would like to say that you've misconstrued a "few celled" embryo with a living child, and in the view of a liberal, that embryo is not a "baby" yet. There are distinct differences between the two beginning with organ and higher brain development. There's no scientific basis to believe that something with no higher brain can be conscious, thoughtful, or otherwise considered alive. It is on this basis, that we believe a woman has the right to choose if she wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, in a time frame BEFORE the embryo begins to develop to the point that human "Life" is evident.

"Capital punishment" (which is nothing more than a fancy term for state-sponsored killing), takes a human life which is fully developed, fully conscious, and completely aware. By a world-wide standard, this is considered archaic and cruel. There are heinous crimes that occur, and I believe as much as anyone that they need to be punished severely. As far as I'm concerned, they should have to live with the consequences of what they've done for the rest of their natural days. There is a law against murder in this country. If you murder a murderer, are you any less guilty than he/she?

HeatherRob,

I propose to pay for public goodies the same way we pay for war.

If a woman and her doctor decide that abortion is the right choice, it is none of my business. I personally do not support abortion, rather, I support birth control. Unlike you (apparently), I believe life begins at birth. Up until then, nobody counts the months of life (you begin counting at zero, at the time of birth). Also, very few people give funerals for miscarriages. Society supports my viewpoint on when life begins. I support a woman's right to choice. If this offends God, that is between the woman and God. If this offends you, that is your problem.

I am against capital punishment because how we treat the people in our society *is* my business. The legal system is too faulted to trust, and this has been shown through the DNA evidence that exhonerated many death row innocents. Where abortion is an individual woman's choice, the death penalty is our society's choice. I am against it, but that debate is over. It is a moot point. We are all murderers as a result.

Ask your god for forgiveness. I have asked mine, and we are cool.

Let me turn this around on you: How can you be supportive of war and capital punishment but against abortion? Loss of innocent lives are involved in all these things, and I will even concede that, technically, life does exist at conception.

I agree. The classic definition for liberal/conservative is what DP mentioned.

Is there a "modern" definition of liberal now? Or is it just a set of issues that they believe in (abortion, social programs, environment, etc)?

In response to otseng:


From Acton Institute



Now, I'm not a liberal, so I'm not sure I can fully understand liberal political philosophy, but does this define mainstream liberalism in the US?

HEY! What about ME???

AuthorMusician, when a state of war exists between two countries, the killing that goes on between the two enemies is not considered murder. That is international law. I saw where you were going with the tie between capital punishment, and the killing that occurs in war. That is why soldiers who kill opposing soldiers cannot be charged with murder. Yet if they kill civilians, or soldiers who surrender, then they have committed murder. The United States abides by these agreed upon laws. Most other countries of the world do not, including supposedly sophisticated European countries. Capital punishment for me follows the same vein as war. When someone commits a crime that a law says is punishable by death, it is not state sponsored murder. That is what laws are for, to establish parameters for behavior and limits for society. You may say, well to have any kind of capital punishment is bad law. But if criminals don't want to be killed for committing heinous crimes, seems to me that capital punishment is doing what it is intended, to be the ultimate solution for those that believe they don't have to follow society's rules.

Great topic to debate HeatherRob & AuthorMusician, but I don't think it should go much farther or we will go beyond the "general terms" to which Wertz asked us to keep this thread.

Wertz originally asked:

Thanks DTOM for the definition.

Now a question for the liberals ... why is it necessary for the state to be involved in all areas where human welfare is at risk?

Ok... To put it plainly... Part of the Constitutional duty of the Congress is to see to "the general welfare of the United States." Different views are had on the definition to this, but what I ask is this.... How can you see to the general welfare of the United States, conceived of the people, by the people, and for the people, if you do not see to the welfare of the people?

Today's your lucky day, Stefan. Hugo gets the psychic-award for having already started this thread in which you are interested in debating: The Welfare State is Unconstitutional, Madison on the general welfare

That is - if you are looking to get really in depth.

The part of this definition I challenge is "all areas where human welfare is at risk."

This is too broad of a statement, and human welfare is not defined.

Does this include the bailout of airlines to save jobs (or maybe executive pay)? I don't think that is a liberal ideal, or if it is, the Republicans share it.

Does this include federal pork to the states to create jobs? Again, Republicans fully support pork to the states in the form of military contracts.

Let me try to narrow down the meaning of "human welfare" and the role that government has within civilized communities. Human welfare, by my definition, involves the basic needs of a person: food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, transportation, communications, recreation, and work. I have expanded these basic needs from the classic ones of Maslow because our civilized communities require all of these in order for a person to be viable.

Food, clothing, and shelter are partially provided now at a minimum standard. However, without education, a member of society will not be able to find work that will provide the other needs (health care, transportation, communications, recreation). Note that the educational requirements for work have expanded past high school since the dawn of the "information" economy (IE), for lack of a better term.

What should government's role be then? Education is primary. Everyone who wants education should be able to get it, period. Without education, work cannot be found to fulfill the other needs. The government must guarantee that everyone can pursue education to their highest potentials because without out this, the IE does not work. As it stands now, fewer people can afford education without amassing large debt, and the education system itself suffers from very old problems about prestige. The government's roles and goals should be to reform education.

What good is education if there are no jobs? The government's role should be to encourage job growth through R&D funding. I'm also in favor of research/publishing grants to independents

Public transportation has been put into place with varying successes. The government's roles should be to promote and provide better public transportation.

Communications is squarely on the shoulders of government. We need broad band to every place, including wireless for remote area access. This is currently regulated in a manner that restricts access on the short-haul by maintaining regional monopolies.

Free enterprise has brought us congested highways, suburban sprawl, damaging growth, inefficient use of human resources, dependency on limited fuel supplies, greater class stratification, periods of serious job loss, homelessness, family breakups, and even dubious wars.

My liberal belief is that government has big responsibilities to the members of our communities--this is why governments exist to begin with. My liberal belief is that the vast majority of community members want to achieve their highest potentials, work at well-paid and interesting jobs, pursue their own good ideas, and contribute to the general welfare of all community members.

I, of course, am a dreamer when it comes to this positive outlook on human nature, as witnessed by the most recent thefts and scams committed by corporate crooks. My idealism is also negated by the greed-infested illegal drug markets, the grossly huge prison systems this has brought about, and a general feeling of "everyone for her/himself" attitude.

Guess we don't deserve the kind of government I've described.

I HAVE to be a liberal because to be a conservative I would have to be

Against welfare

Against public schools

Against Medicare and Medicade

Against student loans

Against health care for the poor and uninsured

Against those who shop at Walmart and keep beer in the fridge

Against free speech for those who do not read the entire paper, including sports and funnys

Against Affirmative Action

Against poor people (who must be lazy)

Against free speech for actors ( unless they are conservatives)

Against those who run to the Doctor for every little thing

Against those who run to the Dr. period (it's their own darn fault they're sick

Against unions

Against minimum wage

Against Head Start

Against unemployment insurance

Against Social Security

Against Gun Control

Against health insurance (pay as you go )

Against people living past 65 (too costly)

Against abortion (I pretty much am)

Against rap music

I'm sure I will be able to add to this list as the Conservs continue to post.

Madtown

Yes, Madtown...but you would be FOR public funds promoting marriage, if only you weren't a liberal.

And I would be for a big bonus for the Whitehouse big shots

and I would be for war

and I would be for big corporation crooks

just to name a few things I would be for if I were not a liberal. sigh

Economically, I believe in the free market system, because I think that it is the only system that provides incentive to workers to better themselves, and it gives people the ability to achieve as much or as little as they are willing to work for. Because of the nature of this system, however, which often relies upon human greed, I do believe that corporations need to be regulated in regards to the environment, employment practices, etc. Should this be done by the government or the consumer? I don’t know. I believe in consumer watch dog groups, and I think that they are often more effective than the government in controlling certain activities, but when a corporate action effects society at large, the government needs to step in, in my opinion.

I believe that access to certain things is a right that should be granted to all citizens regardless of their class status. This includes housing, food, medical care, and education. I don’t think that it’s the responsibility of the government to provide these things, but I do think that they should be affordable. If that means that the government needs to subsidize programs that benefit those in the lower classes, then so be it. Society benefits in the long run from ensuring that its citizens are healthy and educated.

Education, in particular, is important to me, and I feel that all people should have the opportunity to receive a good primary education, and additionally go to college if they so desire. I support government programs that encourage this, including student loans and grants, and I support cultural education that extends beyond institutional education.

I believe in the basic right to life, liberty, and property, and I support the freedom of individuals to make choices regarding their own bodies, ideologies, speech and property as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.

I know this, but Otseng asked why the government needed to be involved anywhere the peoples' welfare was at risk. I felt obligated to answer him here.

Informed?

What the heck is that, Madtown. I resent you pigeonholing conservatives in such a way. This brings up one thing this conservative doesn't understand about liberals.

How come it is OK for you guys to stereotype conservatives as Madtown did above, but god-forbid someone comment about a low-income person shopping at Walmart (as DOTM did in the sister thread) and he gets jumped on as being classist and bigoted. Why is that OK?

I guess you are not for Terry Mcaulife then, the head of the Democratic National Committee, who was involved heavily in the Global Crossing scandal. He only pulled a Martha Stewart(another democrat). I guess the big bucks Bill CLinton made from selling time in the Lincoln Bedroom makes you not like him either. Lyndon Johnson, big time liberal, was the president who started the war in Vietnam, you must not be for him either. Jimmy Hoffa, longtime head of the Teamsters, another democrat stooge, was a known asssociate of the mob. I always wonder how it is that democrats are hand in hand with the mob, yet they claim they are the party of the little guy. What a lie. The democratic party has come up with zero productive legislation in about 60 years. The revival of the economy in 1982, the fall of communism, the liberating of Kuwait, the balanced budget amendment, welfare reform. All produced by conservatives, while liberals sat around criticizing and *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off because they were on the sidelines through it all. But that's o.k., there will always be conservatives around who will actually do the work that needs done, so liberals can remain back seat drivers.

Jaime,

I have not seen any posts of yours that I disagree with. Can you explain what it is that makes you a conservative? I may have missed it if you put it in the Conservative thread but in case it isn't there can you give a small recap on your conservative beliefs?

Thank you for asking about my opinion, Danya. You have not missed my post in the sister thread. I do plan on posting. I have actually been giving this one a lot of thought, I don't want to screw it up.

[quote=HeatherRob,Jan 5 2003, 02:28 PM]just to name a few things I would be for if I were not a liberal. sigh[/QUOTE]
I guess you are not for Terry Mcaulife then, the head of the Democratic National Committee, who was involved heavily in the Global Crossing scandal.[/quote]
Oh, HR, since you want to discuss scandles:

let me tell you what was not a scandal, thanks to the conservative press.

There was no "scandal" when Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger with an indictment filed against him, thus avoiding any questions regarding the involvement of that same Republican President in the Iran-Contra Affair. There was no "scandal" when a partisan court appointed the highest elected official in this country.

There was no "scandal" when an intern was found dead of mysterious causes in Florida Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough's office. There was no "scandal" when Republican Mayor Philip Giordano of Waterbury, Connecticut was caught and charged as a sexual predator of young girls.

There was no "scandal" when the Republican President George Walker Bush nominated Theodore Olson (investigated for obstruction of justice and lying to Congress during the Superfund investigation) to the office of Solicitor General. There was no "scandal" when Florida Governor Jeb Bush's daughter, Noelle Bush, was charged with felony fraud in obtaining a controlled substance.

There was no "scandal" when Republican President George Walker Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara Bush, then 18, were convicted with using illegally obtained and false identification to obtain alcohol. There was no "scandal" when Mark A. Grethen, a Republican activist, nominated for "Republican of the Year" was convicted and is serving a more than 20 year sentence in prison for six counts of sex crimes involving children.

There was no "scandal" when Wendy Gramm, the wife of prominent Republican Senator Phil Gramm, approved illegal partnerships and waived the code of ethics for those partnership formations while on the Board of Directors of Enron. There is no "scandal" when Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay (Enron and Lay contributed $2.16 Million to Republicans in the 2000 election cycle) the largest contributor to the sitting Republican President, George Walker Bush, currently being investigated for leading one of the largest American companies, Enron, into bankruptcy following fraudulently filed earnings reports.

There was no "scandal" when Enron was allowed to price-gouge consumers and the sitting Republican President George Walker Bush refused to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC) to impose price caps to control excess profiteering. There was no "scandal" when the current sitting Republican President George Walker Bush appointed Elliott Abrams (convicted of lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair) to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations.

There was no "scandal" when John Ashcroft, the current Republican Attorney General, spuriously gave a "reprieve" and discontinued the lawfully entered agreement for damages to The Adams Mark Hotel, owned by Fred S. Kummer Jr, a personal friend and $25,700 senatorial campaign contributor, for charges of serious violations of racial discrimination.

There was no "scandal" when key figures, John Negroponte (complicit in the Honduran Death Squads), Richard Armitage (linked to illegal arms transfers and CIA drug-running operations), Otto Reich (propaganda operative), John Poindexter (convicted of conspiracy {obstruction of inquiries and proceedings, false statements, falsification, destruction and removal of documents}; two counts of obstruction of Congress and two counts of false statements) of the Iran-Contra Affair have re-appeared in official governmental positions by appointment by George Walker Bush, the sitting Republican President, the son of the former Republican President, George Herbert Walker Bush, for whom these men worked.

There is no "scandal" when the current Republican Vice President Richard Cheney refuses to release what should be public records of meetings held in the formulation of public policy (The Energy Policy) after being ordered to do so by three Federal Judges (U. S. District Judge Gladys Kessler, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan and U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman). There is no "scandal" when the personal fortune of George Walker Bush, the sitting Republican President, is being bolstered by governmental war contracts to The Carlyle Group, partially owned by his father, former Republican President, George Herbert Walker Bush.

The only exception to this "scandal" rule that you will be able to easily recall is the Watergate scandal presided over by Republican President Richard Milhouse Nixon, who was forced to resign his office in disgrace.

Madtown

I'd like to seperate the liberal/conservative comparisons from the republican/democrat debates. At least for me, the difference between liberal and conservative is vastly different from the difference between a republican and democrat (hardly any in most cases).

Heather, your pointing out scandals of democrats has no bearing to me as far as the idea of "liberal" goes.

Madtown, I enjoy your thoughts and all, but I think sometimes you come across as an apologist of sorts for the Democratic party. Which is fine if that's what you're about. Trust me, I'm on your side most of the time, albeit I am sure far off to your left side!

I do?? I'll have to think about that some.

I am a very loyal person... sometimes too defensive, I know.

I guess I was just born a mushy liberal who believes in a caring society.

Madtown

What did I say wrong? Conservatives ARE against those things, aren't they? (except for a couple that were sarcastic, sorry)

I've been thinking about DOTM's post all day. I still don't quite understand the first paragraph. He was "making an analogy of people who pursue material pleasures as opposed to intellectual ones without regard to how the world functions around them."

His post was in answer to quarkhead's unrealistic philosophy ( no sarcasm intended) that everyone has the drive and ambition to achieve success. How does he know what drive and ambition they have? Most of the time the minimum wage earner works harder than the rest of us doing the dirty work.Success is not the same for all people, they may be very successful for all we know. I don't think it's right or true to label them as unambitious. And what about the lottery ticket remark?

I understand that he believes these people will always be available to fill the service type jobs, which I guess was his point.

Madtown

MT it's not that Conservatives are against those things...it's that we have a totally different idealogy on HOW to bring those changes about. After all these years of the Democratic "Plantation" of basicalliy indefinate servitude to the Democratic party and the bankrupt ideas it keeps trying to shove down our throats. People are starting to get more involved with what is going on and are getting educated. People and small business and familly are what is going to continue to make this country great. Single moms, people having children outa wedlock, and continual funding of destructive behavior is not. I come from a single mother familly and I can can GUARRANTEE you anyone who says single moms can do just as well as a familly are full of crap. I grew up poor..very poor and I don't wish to see MY government pursue a polivcy that is anti-family. Right now there is NO good reason to get married if you look at the tax code...none. Unless you have some moral obligation, church reasons, or familly there is no finiacial reason to be married today. This is one reason I wish to have gay (marriage) unions legal. I want significant other coverage on health care gone so that (married) couples have a reason to be married and a tax code that favors getting married rather than the punitive one that we have now.

Back to lurking,
Darcaine

While it is true that real growth in America is created by entrepreneurs and small businessmen, who in the White House or congress speaks for the ever increasing number low wage American born workers that make their success possible?

Many entrepreneurs cannot afford health insurance and are too small to be able to offer any pension or retirement fund services to their hard working mostly low wage employees. Bush seems only interested in returning the peoples money to the super rich minority. Not too long ago a right wing supporter of Reagan's "trickle down" policy claimed that the economic growth experienced during the Clinton administration was a result of this policy. Assuming for a minute that statement is not completely absurd, is it responsible policy to expect that the millions of struggling Americans should expect to wait ten years for any improvement in their plight?

From the Liberal Slant-The Hole In The Rhetoric. Madtown

I suppose, as I started this thing, I should probably weigh in myself. The most basic distinction between liberalism and conservatism remains close to the dictionary definition: liberals are more open to progress, reform, and change while conservatives seek to preserve the traditions, precepts, and values of the past. Liberalism would also advocate the autonomy of the individual, the favoring of civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

One of the most important things to remember about politics is that, like it or not, they do evolve. Mark Twain may have put it best: "The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." This is one of the reasons that it can be difficult to pin down partisan definitions. Also, notions of conservative and liberal can vary wildly from place to place, not just over time. One of the supreme ironies of the collapse of the Soviet Union (I thought) was that, following the disintegration of the USSR, those identified as "conservative" were, in fact, hard-core, old school communists while the "liberals" were market capitalists. As we appear to be limiting our discussion to the use of the terms in the US in 2003, I'll follow suit - though, unless debating very specific issues, the distinctions are less obvious.

Liberals and conservatives in this country share many of the same political principles, especially as "represented " by the two major parties, and their differences are mostly a matter of degree. The late Steve Kangas felt that the distinctions between the two schools of thought could best be highlighted by looking at paired issues/concerns and aligning the schools with leanings toward one or the other - as I've done below (loosely based on an original list by Mr. Kangas). As the forum does not support tabs or columns, please bear with the awkward form:

Liberal // Conservative
Change // Tradition
Democracy // Constitutionalism
Equality // Merit
Pacificism // Militarism
Public Sector // Private Sector
Science // Religion

Most of us would be somewhere between the poles listed above. Those leaning toward the items in the left columns would tend to be the more liberal - those leaning toward the right columns, more conservative. I expect that few of us will find themselves entirely in one column or the other - and even fewer right down the middle. As I tend to identify more with the issues and constituents in the left column, I would have to identify myself as more liberal than conservative.

There are other poles which could be mentioned, but which would probably derail the thread in an effort to defend them (such as Egalitarianism // Elitism). Also, I don't feel that any of the above are the exclusive domain of either side, just that one school of thought leans more toward one pole and the other toward the other. This is perhaps clearer if we look at the constituencies which the two sides seem to represent or attract:

Liberal // Conservative
Workers // Management
Poor // Rich
Women // Men
Racial minorities // Whites
Ecologists // Industrialists
Humanists // Christians

Clearly, for example, not all women are liberals, nor all men conservative. But liberals would be more likely to advance the causes of feminism, campaign for equal opportunity (or, historically, women's suffrage), and attract a female constituency. Such lables are of limited use, to my mind, and are more often used to dismiss the opinions of others than to recognize them. The most serious problem with such labelling, though, is the presumption that if one supports most issues in one column, then one supports all issues in that column. That, in my experience, has seldom proved to be the case.

The clearest differences between liberals and conservatives can obviously be found when we look to positions on very specific issues. I recently came across a very good liberal rant at another discussion board which I'd like to reproduce here as an example of just how clear those differences can be. As the board where this piece was posted is not effectively moderated and has no restrictions on the use of "strong language", it will take me a bit of time to properly bowdlerize it. It will appear in this thread shortly (I hope)...


I'll also try to get to why I tend to lean toward the left column in most cases - though I believe that has been covered, in part, in several threads here already (starting with Introductions...)

I had always thought it more obvious than all this:

Liberals were those who supported extending the franchise.

Conservatives believed that inferior human beings (woman, landless poor, slaves etc) couldn't be trusted with such power.

Am not sure this fundamental difference (liberals believing in the innate goodness of people/ conservatives in their innate evil) has really changed much. Judging by the current breed of conservatives running the show I can only suspect their conviction that the people can't be trusted is best informed by the fact that THEY KNOW they can't be trusted!

Old Irish joke:

"Do you know why the sun never sets on the British Empire?"

"No, why does the sun never set on the British Empire?"

"Because God knows you can't trust an Englishman in the dark"

Yes, liberalism is all about extending the franchise. People seem to forget that the government is something in which we are all stakeholders, voting members of the board of directors if you will. We all have a small say, through this democratic process, in the course of the nation. The more voices we have, the more we can shape our society to accomodate a wider variety of backgrounds. Thanks to liberalism, women can vote, blacks can attend the same universities as caucasians, and children can have legal recourse against physical abuse from adults.

Liberalism extends control over personal choices to the individual, beyond those of base ownership, while denying the notion that any one person can own another. Reasonable labor practices result from this philosophy. Do you enjoy your weekends? Do you appreciate the nominal 40-hour work week? Does the thought of young children working full shifts in coal mines, contracting black lung disease, seem foreign to you? Thank the liberals. There were people in the labor rights movement who were beaten to death and lynched to get you the standards we consider commonplace today.

Liberals believe in promoting a commonwealth, in which the benefits of a society are not wholly concentrated in a tiny owning minority. Affordable housing to shelter families in need, public libraries to preserve and make available literature, schools where children of any race and religion can receive an adequate education, decent medical care for those incapable of shouldering the cost themselves, these are all liberal ideals.

Although we've hardly achieved all we set out to, it's worth noting that we have gone far enough that "neo"-conservativism is no longer aimed at preserving a status quo, but returning us to a much earlier one. Most of this will be accomplished through dissolving existing structures, returning the formerly public benefits to control of the Capitalists (big C), and rolling back regulations which sought to provide human equality and public spaces. Liberals oppose this, and in some ways we have become the true conservatives, seeking to hold the ground we've already gained.

That's my .02, anyway.

Organism,

Hmmm, you forgot preserving ecosystems, or perhaps that was on purpose. Perhaps it takes an independent liberal to state the following without much fear of being labeled a communist or whatever: Liberals are for ecology while others are for exploitation. Actually, this might better be stated as "Liberals are for intelligent use of natural resources, meaning sustainable use where natural and balanced cycles are studied, understood, and maintained with the knowledge that irresponsible use of resources leads to depletion, poisoning, and death of species, most notably of the human kind."

I'm not sure about the inherent goodness or evilness of humans. This involves several value judgements based upon a person's point of view. For example, many conservatives think people are inherently able to take care of themselves in responsible manners, meaning the abilities to earn a living, excel, become well-to-do or wealthy. Some liberals think that a portion of the population will always need a helping hand, and that this is an inherent responsibility of society. Both viewpoints have their positives and negatives when looked at without prejudice.

Yet another issue: What kills more Americans, terrorism or tainted food? Conservatives tend to think that terrorism is a great evil and must be contained by massive government effort involving the suspension of freedoms. Liberals tend to think more regulation and oversight is needed to avoid tainted food deaths, which by some numbers I've seen, involve more American deaths than terrorism. This leads to an observation that conservatives have more difficulty with thinking in shades of gray than liberals, at least on this particular issue of personal threat from evil-doers. Both conservative and liberals are emotional critters, however, and thus we witnessed high backing of Bush after 9/11. This has since reduced as people move out of their mourning periods. Another contributing factor is doubt about the value of war with Iraq as a means to fight terrorism.

Liberals distrust free enterprise while conservatives think that free enterprise is a good thing--business is self-regulating. The recent business scandals have refuted this conservative belief--they really are just a bunch of robber barons when given the chance. Nature or nurture?

Good question. Is there a greed gene? Or is this the result of an avarice association? I tend to think the latter and have a deep distrust of country clubs.

I think that the only thing I agree with here, and I think Wertz said it, was that these definitions evolve.

Much of what President Kennedy did and said would be considered conservative today.

I think it's always a problem putting people or even ideas into pigeon holes - it's so confining. Labels are just that - labels, not a complete understanding.

But, for the sake of convenience if you take the classic descriptions of liberalism and conservatism - they need one another for balance. Each left to its own devices becomes all consuming. Not a good thing.

The problem is to get people to acknowledge that the two streams need one another - and can learn from one another. People tend to become entrenched. Including me.