The terms “liberal” and “conservative” go back a bit in political theory. How far? That’s a good question, but I’m going to start, because of our common heritage with England with William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli in late 19th century.

http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/history/taxhis3.htm

In Friday’ night’s debate in St. Louis, the issue came up in two exchanges between Bush and Kerry. I’ve included one of those exchanges below. It appears the terms are likely to come up again tonight in Arizona.


<snip>


http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

For today’s Fort Worth Star Telegram, my favorite local columnist and personal friend Bob Ray Sanders wrote a column on “liberalism” and "conservativism. In attempt not to skew the thread, I have taken only minimal quotes from Sanders. I would encourage those interested to click the link and read Sanders editorial, even though it may require registration.

Sanders explains, that he was having lunch with a friend who handed him a note requesting that he do a column on the subject.


<snip>


Link to Sanders’ editorial.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists.../9906579.htm?1c

“Liberal” and "Conservative" are more than words, they are “labels” and “concepts” in political theory. I am going to try and draw my questions for debate as tightly as possible with the thought in mind that we are dealing with political theory as much as political practice.

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE

1. Do you think of yourself as a political “liberal” or “conservative?”

2. If so, do the terms do complete justice to your views?

3. Do modifiers or qualifiers such as “ultra,” “right-wing,” “compassionate” or one my father used to use “moss-back” for conservatives and those Sanders mentions for liberals-- “wild-eyed”, “bleeding-heart,” “tax and spend,” and “socialist,” add meaning?

4. Will and/or should these labels impact the election?

5. Do the labels lead to unnecessary polarization in the American political system?

1. Do you think of yourself as a political “liberal” or “conservative?”

I think I am excluded from the topic. What about Moderates?????

2. If so, do the terms do complete justice to your views?

The terms mean nothing anymore. The left has vilified the right to the same insane degree that the right has vilified the the left.

The basic difference between the two view points is that on feels the government is the problem and one feels the government is the solution. Funny thing is, both sides tread both sides of this concept.

Conservatives think government should stay out of our wallets, properties, etc. but then they see government and legislation as the answer to a host of "moral" issues, like gay marriage for example.

Liberals see the government as the best option to solve the problems of the poor, those without health care, etc. However, they are the first to jump and scream if the government institutes a curfew, or attempts to control the borders.

Then of course when either is in power they frequently sacrifice their views, principles and constituents to vote the way that best serves their re-election finances.

3. Do modifiers or qualifiers such as “ultra,” “right-wing,” “compassionate” or one my father used to use “moss-back” for conservatives and those Sanders mentions for liberals-- “wild-eyed”, “bleeding-heart,” “tax and spend,” and “socialist,” add meaning?

Generally speaking, the use of a qualifier in this way is done to marginalize the person they are attaching it to. Who hears "Ultra Right Winger" or "Bleeding heart Liberal" and thinks happy thoughts?

4. Will and/or should these labels impact the election?

What is the difference between someone who won't vote for a leftist, and someone that votes because the candidate is sooooooo cute?

What America needs is an informed electorate. Unfortunately, Americans are generally too lazy (AD members excluded of course ) to even devote a moment to consider what they think about most issues, let alone research what a candidate is all about.

5. Do the labels lead to unnecessary polarization in the American political system?

Labels are a symptom of this polarization, not the cause.

The cause is the two major sides of politics choosing to attack each other rather then debate the issues. They choose to oppose each other at every possible turn they can politically get away with it, even if they normally support the type of measure in question. Add to the the ever increasing list of media and news options, all of which have some level of bias one way or the other and you end up with an electorate that is too lazy to research anything political, and chooses the media outlet(s) that slants closest to their views so their thinking is never challenged.

Americans are Responsible for the Polarization:

1> Most don't vote
2> Most that vote don't bother to consider anything but their party
3> Most buy into whatever "their" side has to say without even considering the other
4> Most are just to lazy to really consider the various issues
5> Most prefer their information to be biased, to their thinking
6> Most complain about the tactics of politicians but do nothing about it (like vote them out).

Fix those 6 things and you'll fix polarization. If only it was really possible.

OLS,

Thanks for your well thought out reply.

It was not my intention to leave out moderates. In fact, how moderates view "liberals" and "conservatives" could be interesting.

BTW: The first three questions are theoretical; the last two practical. The word "liberal" did come up tonight.

There are two types of people in the world: Those who turn everything into two categories, and those who do not.

Not sure who said/wrote that first.

I think of myself as liberal. A liberal traditionalist who experiments with new ideas and knows what worked in the past. A cautious risk-taker, I'll stop cold in a dark room to think things out before moving forward in a zig-zagged straight line.

"Walking contradiction" fits better. Politically, I am supportive of most liberal causes, and so that label sticks. Usually I can see the other side's point of view, no matter how wrong it is. Recently, this ability has been severely challenged.

I think the present power structure is [common explative gerund used as modifier] crazy, as in delusional and overly fearful. But then, that's common in all politics.



Nope. The terms are just shorthand notation for reality. In some ways, I might be considered conservative. Think it depends on the observer, and self-observation is always distorted.



Language modifiers can either clarify or cloud, or do both in the hands of skilled political spinners. Unskilled spinners give me a headache. Some upset my gastric constitution. A few raise hackles.

Wild-eyed, bleeding heart, tax/spend, socialist, pinko, commie, and (sneer) Liberal are all classic spins from the right wing. They are hackle-raising modifiers.

Ooops, forgot "spawn of satan."

So are war-mongering, labor-kicking, silver-spooned, greedy and power-mad for the other side. Real button-pushers.

Um, forgot "fascist."

However, seems that there is quite a market out there for hackle-raising, button-pushing modifiers. If you have enough lack of integrity to exploit the market, that is. Coulter and Moore come to mind.



Oh sure. Lazy thinkers trend toward labels and blind loyalties, responding to punditry that sounds or feels good, ignoring the hidden agendas that, with a little bit of investigation, would stand out like blood on grass.



If you look for something hard enough, it'll show up regardless of its actual existence. It's not the polarization that's remarkable. History shows this country to have been founded as polarized, and that situation hasn't changed. It just gets more extreme at times. Is the country extremely polarized for this election?

Good question. We'll see. Is extreme polarization necessary? Yep, and encouraged with a fundamentally two-party system. Sometimes a T. Roosevelt or R. Perot comes along to make things more interesting. Bully! And let me tell you a story . . .

People talk about a political spectrum as if it were a simple linear two dimensional line extending from the "left" to the "right". In actuality political positions could probably be best mapped in some kind of three dimensional, multi-branched layout. Liberal and Conservative can be used loosely to indicate differing positions within that larger field but are not end points on a straight line. For some time now "conservative" Republicans have attempted to change the meaning of the word "liberal" into something very different from its definitions or traditional meanings and usage. They have tried to turn "liberal" into a sort of dirty word or label used to smear opponents, much the same way the labels "commie" or "nazi" have been used in the past against people who were in fact neither one. In that context, "liberal" has no real definition or correlation to people's actual political views; instead it is only a nasty name, without specific meaning, used to put someone down. Bush desperately attempted to play that "liberal smear" card during the debate. It works well for him with the heavily screened sycophant audiences he usually speaks to, but it fell a bit flat before a wider audience. Here are a couple of the traditional definitions and meanings of the word "Liberal".

Liberal – adj. ”1. Having, expressing, or following social or political views or policies that favor non-revolutionary progress and reform. 2. Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing. 3. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others. 4. Tending to give freely; generous; bountiful: a liberal serving.
- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, copyright 1969.
also
Lib•er•al \Lib"er*al\, Adj. 1. Favoring political and social reforms tending towards democracy and personal freedoms for the individual; advocating reform or progress in education, religion, etc. 2. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; not bigoted. 3. Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 4. Describing Democratic forms of government, as distinguished from monarchies, aristocracies, oligarchies, fascism, etc.

The term "Conservative" has a specific traditional meaning in American politics. Here is a pretty good working definition.

Conservative - adj. 1. Tending to favor the preservation of the existing order and to regard proposals for change with distrust. 2. Moderate; prudent; cautious. 3. Traditional in manner or style; not showy. 4. Tending to conserve.
Conservatism - n. 1. The disposition in politics or culture to maintain the existing order and to resist or oppose change or innovation.
- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, copyright 1969.

Unfortunately, this traditional meaning of conservatism, while still applicable to many ordinary people in America, no longer seems very accurate when talking about the so-called neo/conservatives who have a much more radical agenda. Their positions on such things as prudent economic policy, cautious foreign policy, or environmental preservation are so different from the older meaning of the word conservative that they themselves were forced to use the term neo/con to distinguish themselves and their policies from the older meaning. In fact, the differences are so great that they really seem to be hiding their true face behind the facade of conservatism. It is interesting to look at the definitions of another political term and see how much they match the actual actions and policies of the current neo/con Administration of George Bush. I am not intending this to be more name-calling, rather I just think the similarities are striking and worth examining. You will either see some similarities or you won't. It is well worth thinking about, I believe, considering how serious the consequences for our nation could be if the current trends are allowed to continue.

Fascism – “A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism."
- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Edition, copyright 1969, printed 1976. (also) - “A political philosophy and movement of extreme nationalism, militaristic imperialism, suppression of civil rights, and opposition to democratic social progress, expressed through the efforts of a fanatic minority to seize
complete political power.”
- The Grosset Webster Dictionary, revised edition, copyright 1947, printed 1978.

In relation to this second definition, I think the "fanatic minority", in our case at this point in time in America, would be the super-rich top several percent of our population. The words "oligarchy" and "plutocracy" also come to mind.

I got mixed up and posted on the wrong threasd. Here's a link to an new thread that has some definitions of liberal and conservative. Someone remind me never to post before my firsat cup of coffee. LOL

This link fixes it.

New Thread

1. Do you think of yourself as a political “liberal” or “conservative?”

If those were the only two alternatives, I'd have to say conservative because I share at least the conservative view of human nature and in general of how the world works, though I differ with them on many "litmus test" issues. But no way could I ever be what passes for a liberal these days, though you could fairly call me a "classical liberal", which essentially means a non-radical libertarian.

2. If so, do the terms do complete justice to your views?

Not even close. To do complete justice I have to resort to really obscure terms like "Old Whig" or "Burkean Whig."

3. Do modifiers or qualifiers such as “ultra,” “right-wing,” “compassionate” or one my father used to use “moss-back” for conservatives and those Sanders mentions for liberals-- “wild-eyed”, “bleeding-heart,” “tax and spend,” and “socialist,” add meaning?

They certainly can. Some of those examples are nothing more than pejoratives, though descriptive ones. Others change the meaning significantly and usefully. If were to call me a libertarian conservative you'd be close. If you were to call me a conservative libertarian you'd be closer yet.

4. Will and/or should these labels impact the election?

Yes. If Bush wins, it will be in part because he successfully (and accurately) stuck the liberal tag on Kerry.

5. Do the labels lead to unnecessary polarization in the American political system?

They merely describe polarization that's already there. Take away the labels and the polarization would still be there and still be just as fierce; we'd just lack some of words we need to describe it.

QUESTIONS FOR DEBATE

1.Do you think of yourself as a political “liberal” or “conservative?”

2. If so, do the terms do complete justice to your views?

3. Do modifiers or qualifiers such as “ultra,” “right-wing,” “compassionate” or one my father used to use “moss-back” for conservatives and those Sanders mentions for liberals-- “wild-eyed”, “bleeding-heart,” “tax and spend,” and “socialist,” add meaning?

4. Will and/or should these labels impact the election?

5. Do the labels lead to unnecessary polarization in the American political system?

[/quote]

1.)Definitely a liberal

2.)Other than abortion, guns, and the right to privacy, I'm a liberal on most every other oissue. On the former, I'm more libertarian.

3.)They add meaning, only negative meaning though. Words like that are thrown around by both parties to arouse their supporters against those whom they view as being wild-eyed and generally not with it.

4.)I think Bush tried that "liberal" route, but it really isn't sticking as far as I know. Even with that tactic, he still lost the third debate.

5.)I don't think so, it forces politicians to defend their positions and to try and truly show that they are not what others make them out to be. Politics has always been negative to acertain degree, and I doubt you can really change that 110%.