Liberalism And Conservatism

[Elixir]

I didn't and don't argue that. So I don't need to read the rest of your post.

Any other comments?

Yeah they’re in the rest of the post.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Something that a lot of liberals today struggle with accepting is that unless the liberal nations have a lot more guns than the conservative countries, all the liberal reforms and personal freedoms will go away, and we'll go back to nobles (ie the maffia in castles) dividing up the planet between them.

What keeps the world free and liberal isn't lofty ideals and a big bleeding heart, it's cold steel, raw power and weapons.

Again 'liberals' as you use the term is not liberalism.


In the USA we have a liberal democratic republic. In that system there are thosee called 'liberals' and 'conservatives'.

Within both are subcategories. That would be another thread.

If yu want to rant I can not stop it. The question is the durbity of post WWII western liberlism.

I think it is liberalism. In the west our conservatives are liberal. They're just more conservative than the western liberals. They're still liberal.

And both the western conservatives and liberals can both lose our freedoms if we're not careful.

 

[Playball40]

By fiscally conservative I mean there are limits on government s[ending. That is true of capitalist, socialist, or communist. There is als economics.

Which is why I think people turning to socialism see it a a kind of panacea. Which it is not.


When Bernie Sanders would say something should be 'free' it is not really free. Somebody has to produce and support it. and be compensated.

Washington state and Seattle chronically have large budget shortfalls. Yet continue to expand government and increase social spending.

America from the start was a great merriment in liberall decency. Self rule by the people. It spears to be failing.

But "free" healthcare and college is ultimately a BOON/Net Gain for society and economics in general. I would gladly pay MORE in taxes for both programs. What I do NOT want to continue doing is paying my taxes so the elite can get richer (Trump and his cronies) or to wage stupid wars or support countries that wage stupid wars. You can be progressive and fiscally conservative - It just depends on WHAT the government is spending money on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Something that a lot of liberals today struggle with accepting is that unless the liberal nations have a lot more guns than the conservative countries, all the liberal reforms and personal freedoms will go away, and we'll go back to nobles (ie the maffia in castles) dividing up the planet between them.

What keeps the world free and liberal isn't lofty ideals and a big bleeding heart, it's cold steel, raw power and weapons.

Again 'liberals' as you use the term is not liberalism.


In the USA we have a liberal democratic republic. In that system there are thosee called 'liberals' and 'conservatives'.

Within both are subcategories. That would be another thread.

If yu want to rant I can not stop it. The question is the durbity of post WWII western liberlism.

I think it is liberalism. In the west our conservatives are liberal. They're just more conservative than the western liberals. They're still liberal.

And both the western conservatives and liberals can both lose our freedoms if we're not careful.

Like I said, nothing but noise.

 

[Tigers!]

I don't think anyone voted FOR Trump. What Trump has going for him is that he's rich enough to survive the rest of the political and media elite turning on him. What got Trump elected was the fact that he's anything other than the old elites. People are so sick at being talked down to by a slick and slimey politician. They'd rather have an idiot whose at least honest about being a lying scumbag. They didn't for for Trump. They voted AGAINST all the others.

In Australia our version of Trump, Farage is called Pauline Hanson.
She is riding quite high in the polls (but may have peaked). She is popular, not because of her policy offerings, such as they are, but because she is saying publicly that the duopoly of Labour/Coalition is not working (sound familiar?) and is only concerned with themselves and the coteries.
There is no other way currently in Australia to publicly denounce the duopoly.
The commentators (who benefit from the current duopoly) cannot understand why she is popular. She is popular because she is not 'them'.
It is as simple as that. The mug voter has had enough.
It a protest against the incumbents, the 'system' not necessarily a vote for her. And ditto for Farage, AfD, Le Pen etc.

 

[Emily Lake]

To me, the problem with "liberalism" is it is just a word. Yet, it seems to control conversations in its own right without any discussion of policy or means and methods to manage anything. Labels control the conversation more than the actual subject, where people bog down into neo-liberalism, old fashioned liberalism, what may or may not be liberalism today. So much noise! Then there is the issue of right-wing / left-wing populism being conflated with conservatism and liberalism, respectively, making things even more muddled.

To me liberalism is the scientific method of living. It asks of everything, 'Is that really a good idea?' Where as conservativism sticks with inertia, what is believed to be proven and what is traditional. What matters most is to understand that neither of these is a cheat sheet to truth and what helps result in a better functioning society. Worse yet, the better option could also change over time, because societies, values, needs change over time. Liberalism and conservatism should be tools used in thinking and developing policy, not religions.

More and more, I really don't think it's a liberal-conservative axis. I really think it's liberal-authoritarian, and it's progressive-conservative.

Liberalisms asks "Is that really a good idea?" Authoritarianism says "This is the right idea".
Progessivism says "Lets do it all right now!" Conservativism says "How about we start with a small bit and see if it works?"

I'm pretty sure I'm a liberal conservative.

 

[bilby]

I don't think anyone voted FOR Trump. What Trump has going for him is that he's rich enough to survive the rest of the political and media elite turning on him. What got Trump elected was the fact that he's anything other than the old elites. People are so sick at being talked down to by a slick and slimey politician. They'd rather have an idiot whose at least honest about being a lying scumbag. They didn't for for Trump. They voted AGAINST all the others.

In Australia our version of Trump, Farage is called Pauline Hanson.
She is riding quite high in the polls (but may have peaked). She is popular, not because of her policy offerings, such as they are, but because she is saying publicly that the duopoly of Labour/Coalition is not working (sound familiar?) and is only concerned with themselves and the coteries.
There is no other way currently in Australia to publicly denounce the duopoly.
The commentators (who benefit from the current duopoly) cannot understand why she is popular. She is popular because she is not 'them'.
It is as simple as that. The mug voter has had enough.
It a protest against the incumbents, the 'system' not necessarily a vote for her. And ditto for Farage, AfD, Le Pen etc.

I think this is a good reason to have RON (Re-Open Nominations) on every ballot. If RON wins, the election is done over, with none of the candidates on the original ballot (or any preceeding ballots, if RON wins more than one round) permitted to stand.

Of course this risks a seat or elected position remaining vacant for a long time, but it's far from clear to me that that's a worse outcome than the grudging election of a candidate just because the voters hate all the others even more.

It also means that candidates who run unopposed are still required to get the support of the voters, and are not certain to get the job even if everyone hates them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a fun one... another common blind spot among liberals. Liberalism is western colonialism and western cultural imperialism. These spread over the world through the barrel of a gun.

Liberalism is not natural or our natural state. We won't all slide into liberalism if the baddies are all given big hugs. Liberalism is a pretty unlikely movement that came out of the European enlightenment, and we're super super lucky that it came together with capitalism and industrialisation. It has only ever happened once in one place in all of world history.

The current liberal world order ONLY exists because the west are still economically dominant. Considering how the world looks now, the moment the west stops being economically dominant liberalism is gone. All those rights we've fought for will all just disappear. *pooof*

Liberal democracies are organised so the armies are subordinate to the parliaments. Without the parliaments having that control over the army, it's over. And whatever country has the biggest army wins, and gets to dictate what values will be predominant in the world.

Anyway... it's always funny with liberal universities studying post colonial studies. That's an oxymoron.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Liberalism and conservatism should be tools used in thinking and developing policy, not religions.

While I do agree we accept evolutionary theory, aren't particularly "religious" about it, and get accused of "believing the religion of evolution" anyway, for example. Same goes of atheism. Oh, and it's even considered to be part of "liberalism" in some circles even though it's just science. I feel like it's often the case that people falsely claim we're being religious, rather than actively being religious about anything. People also conflate passion with religiosity- as though no one is allowed to be passioniate about political beliefs, philosophical views or science itself.

 

[Elixir]

I have zero confidence that government can make society more egalitarian.

I have FULL confidence that government can make American society more egalitarian than it is now.
Of course that bar is pretty much laying on the ground.

 

[Elixir]

I’m social liberal; fiscally conservative.

But money is needed to fund social programs. How do you square that?

It's not actually that difficult.

Money is needed, but "more money" doesn't necessarily lead to better outcomes. Spend money wisely, and where it will accomplish the goal it's intended to accomplish. And if it's not accomplishing that goal, stop spending it.

Not all social programs are created equal. Some have more identifiable and measurable outcomes, or serve a social good that almost everyone agrees is worthwhile. School lunch programs, for example, have widely been supported by both political parties and people of all income levels. We all know that having a meal is important in a day full of learning, we all know that some kids have less than others and need a helping hand to get a healthy and filling meal. It supports overall childhood health which is well established as an indicator of future success. It supports a level of equal opportunity that I think we all generally want in place.

On the other hand, I would say that publicly funded wet shelters, and safe drug use locations are perhaps not a wise use of funds. I know they sound nice, but looking at the repercussions in the areas they've been tried, I don't think they benefit the public and arguably increase risks for a whole lot of people.

Being fiscally conservative doesn't mean don't spend any money. It means spend it wisely and be sure that it's going to work, because it's other people's money that you're spending. Being fiscally conservative generally means one believes the government has a fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers, and should act as a prudent intermediary for our funds.

All the self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" I've ever heard bloviate have been against spending money on gov't programs because that money could be used to cut taxes. They have been anti-government.

That rings true. No doubt that the effort to sow discontent among the rabble will need to be escalated real soon, if a disaster like general prosperity is to be avoided.

I have doubts about the limits of positive social effects achievable by government. But its ability to cause division and strife is manifestly unlimited.
ONE OUT OF THREE AMERICANS IS STILL A TRUMPSUCKER.
And I bet they have more guns than the other two thirds.

 

[southernhybrid]

When it comes to military spending, I'm a strong fiscal conservative, but I'm fairly liberal when it comes to things that help others. So, I guess I'm sort of a cultural Christian unlike the Christians who support Trump and company.

When it comes to social things, I'm all in. Be who you are without interference from government. No-one should be discriminated against due to gender, sexual orientation, race, religious beliefs or ethnicity, and anything I may have left out. In other words, I support civil rights for all!

Or, as the old soul song goes, "Do your thing" That is assuming you aren't hurting anyone else, of course.

 

[steve_bank]

The question is whether liberalism can achieve stability. We carry rights like free speech to a destructive extreme.

We were once somewhat stable. Different admonitions mpved around the center.

Now we lurch from one extreme to the other. In control systems it is called limit cycling and can be destructive.

Core Principles

Individualism: The belief that the individual is paramount and holds basic inalienable rights.
Rule of Law: Laws must protect individual freedoms and apply equally to all citizens.Consent of the Governed: Governments derive their legitimacy from the people through democratic representation.
Toleration: Acceptance of diverse political, religious, and social viewpoints.

It is all about the individual. Fine in 19th century rural America. The westward expansion was a pressure relief valve.

Problematic on the scale of 400 million and millions crowded in cities who do not agree politically.

One of my aunts said in a high school civics class she was taught with freedom goes responsibility y

Trump is a glaring example of not take responsibility for his consequences of his 'free' speech.

It appliers to our governed in general. I listened to Mamdani's populist rants.

We just as easily end up with a Trump lke tyrant from the left.

 

[Elixir]

The question is whether liberalism can achieve stability.

The answer is … WTF?
In what universe are humans’ interrelationships “stable”?