Liberalism vs Conservatism

[Sergeant Gleed]

Everyone on one side wants to associate the concept of fascism with the other side. It's kind of... stupid in a lot of ways.

And, naturally, since fascism is socialism, it's the socialists who are the new fascists.

You'll notice who the fascists are by identifying those who shriek "not my president" at the sky, as if the sky gives a crap.

You'll notice who the fascists are by their smear on a decent and honorable judge.

You'll notice who the fascists are by their use of perpetual lies in the media, aka propaganda.

You'll notice who the fascists are, of course, by their promotion of socialism.

So yeah, the fascists will call the real Americans "fascists", but the real fascists are easy to identify. They're called "Democrats" because they refuse to accept the results of elections they lose.

[Standing Wolf]

Everyone on one side wants to associate the concept of fascism with the other side. It's kind of... stupid in a lot of ways.

Fascism has elements of both liberalism and conservatism and to try to label it wholly one and not the other is ridiculous.

To be honest, I don't know if an honest discussion about liberalism contrasted with conservatism could happen here since I think many if not most people have predisposed opinions of both.

Not only that, but people have a very strong tendency to define their own "group" or "side" in as positive a way as possible, while defining "the other guys" as negatively as possible. That can only result in a very inaccurate, self-serving mischaracterization of both sides.

More telling still, both "conservatives" and "liberals" often fail to fully live up to their own stated principles. Self-identified conservatives will extol the virtues of small government, while attempting to bring the full weight of the legal system down on anything that offends their sensibilities. Self-described liberals claim to value the rights and freedoms of the individual - except when they don't.

Then, of course, there's the small matter of context. "Conservative" in terms of which issues? "Liberal" regarding what? We often hear, "I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal" - and that's a perfectly reasonable summation of belief; but it seems to confuse and confound a lot of people, who seem to have a problem wrapping their heads around the concept that someone could identify as both things in different circumstances or scenarios.

[Chris]

Not only that, but people have a very strong tendency to define their own "group" or "side" in as positive a way as possible, while defining "the other guys" as negatively as possible. That can only result in a very inaccurate, self-serving mischaracterization of both sides.

More telling still, both "conservatives" and "liberals" often fail to fully live up to their own stated principles. Self-identified conservatives will extol the virtues of small government, while attempting to bring the full weight of the legal system down on anything that offends their sensibilities. Self-described liberals claim to value the rights and freedoms of the individual - except when they don't.

Then, of course, there's the small matter of context. "Conservative" in terms of which issues? "Liberal" regarding what? We often hear, "I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal" - and that's a perfectly reasonable summation of belief; but it seems to confuse and confound a lot of people, who seem to have a problem wrapping their heads around the concept that someone could identify as both things in different circumstances or scenarios.

people have a very strong tendency to define their own "group" or "side" in as positive a way as possible, while defining "the other guys" as negatively as possible

Why else would one join a group, especially a political group, than that ideology best represents what they're for and other ideologies what they're against.


Once again, this is why I picked the liberal-leaning PBS to define terms as neutrally as possible.

Did you bother to read the OP and listen to the video. Seems not.

[Trish]

Not only that, but people have a very strong tendency to define their own "group" or "side" in as positive a way as possible, while defining "the other guys" as negatively as possible. That can only result in a very inaccurate, self-serving mischaracterization of both sides.

More telling still, both "conservatives" and "liberals" often fail to fully live up to their own stated principles. Self-identified conservatives will extol the virtues of small government, while attempting to bring the full weight of the legal system down on anything that offends their sensibilities. Self-described liberals claim to value the rights and freedoms of the individual - except when they don't.

Then, of course, there's the small matter of context. "Conservative" in terms of which issues? "Liberal" regarding what? We often hear, "I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal" - and that's a perfectly reasonable summation of belief; but it seems to confuse and confound a lot of people, who seem to have a problem wrapping their heads around the concept that someone could identify as both things in different circumstances or scenarios.

Bravo!!! (Trish claps enthusiastically)

[Jets]

The problem is that both can be subjective. As someone pointed out earlier, the definitions have evolved over time.

[Chris]

The problem is that both can be subjective. As someone pointed out earlier, the definitions have evolved over time.

Subjective, to me, means open to discussion.

As the OP points out, a statement was made that what links fascism to conservatism is authoritarianism. The OP disagrees with that definition and provides a liberal but fairly neitral definition from PBS. It's expected people with opinions, however subjective, would chime in with their opinions. Saying definitions are subjective and such simply dismisses discussion.

[Standing Wolf]

The problem is that both can be subjective. As someone pointed out earlier, the definitions have evolved over time.

Of course they have. The parameters of what would be considered acceptable policy by either self-id'ed group have changed as society has changed. A conservative - either economic or social - of the first half of the Nineteenth Century would most likely be a defender of the institution of human slavery, and any attempt to forbid the practice would be portrayed by the conservatives of that day as an attack on tradition and private ownership rights. On the other hand, relatively few social liberals prior to the 1960s would have considered same-sex marriage to be a cause suitable for their attention and support.

[Chris]

What I'm wondering is when in the history of conservatism have they ever been considered authoritarian? This myth persists among many liberals.

And facism, authoritarian is just such a gross oversimplification. Mussolini was no more an authoritarian pushing central planning than FDR was. Central planning had been pushed by Progressives since TR. People back then thought you could centrally plan not just economies but societies. WWII showed just how terrible an idea it was.

The conservative movement in the US started with Buckley and Kirk in reaction against New Deal policies.

[Captdon]

Chris,

I believe the issue is the platforms that liberal and conservatives are known to support are different from what today's Democrats and Republicans are for.

The parties have been taken over by more vocal groups that are pushing for more extreme agendas. This is why there are so many people leaving both parties in droves.

I know I'm not telling you something you don't already know because you've made the same observation.

We need to stop pretending the new republican and democrat are the same as the old republican and democrat. They no longer exist. We can't compare them to what they once were.

I started as a Democrat. Then I became a Blue Dog Democrat. Then I became a Republican. Now, I'm in a party of one.I don't know what to call it. I think I might call it Fred. I haven't changed much but the parties have.

[Captdon]

Well I agree there, when it comes to parties you get mixes of ideologies. The Republican Party was almost the opposite during the late 1800s into the 1900s, that is anti-free market. That changed when the new conservatives of the 1950s emerged who adhere to classical liberal, small govermnet, free-market principles. More recently you see neocons, ex-communists and ex-Troskyites--coming in who are liberal domestically but sodmewhat imperialistic in foreign policy, thus authoritarian. And when Carter disappoint the Evangelicals they switched to the Republican Party hoping to impose their values. But these latter two are virtually indisguishable from liberals, just pushing different values.

Modern conservatism started with Robert Taft in the late forties. He seems to be forgotten.