Replies to "Liberal or Conservative"

Reply #1

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 07:41:24 -0400 (EDT)

I have a few things to say about politics. I'm not that eloquent when it comes down to a one sided conversation, like this is, but I'll give it my best shot...

I recently read a rant about Liberals and Conservatives on this page, and had a most unique reaction. It seemed to me that the ranter was very good at illuminating the difference between Conservatives and Liberals, and had his/her opinions based on what they know about the differing views of the two groups, which they are entitled to. The part that bugged me was the fact that the person didn't acknowlege what those two types of viewpionts contribute to government. Differing aproaches to the same goal have been a staple in society for longer than any government has been around. What we see today is the result of "civilized" men who wanted to set an arena for differing views to be heard, and still work constructively towards a common goal. Has it worked as well as they might have hoped? I don't think so. Mankind always seems to ruin a good idea, and set us back a notch on the evolutionary scale. The thing is is at least there are people trying.

I might expect a rebut like, "Yeah, right, what are they doing?" Well, I would say they are doing a whole hell of a lot more than what the unsatisfied majority does. All most people do is vote and complain about whoever is in any said office. I don't usually see people out there being proactive about crime, drugs, the environment, or whatever cause they want to complain about today. And taxes, well, last time I checked, this country was very light on taxes compared to other large countries (and some small ones, too).

To the point, if we didn't have people like Liberals and Conservatives constantly vying for political voice in government, then we might as well not even try calling ourselves a democracy anymore, and just find leaders that will simply tell us what to do (ever read Orwell's book "1984"). Because of an old peice of dried up parchment with a bunch of writing on it (it's called the constitution), we can actually contribute to how efficient or inefficient this country of ours conducts itself. Most people want the same things for this country, they just have differing veiwpoints. All we need is some proper representation, and some political know-how, and we can actually help to change the things we see wrong. It's a long term process, and you may not see the fruition of your goals fully, but you could actually make a difference instead of putting all that energy into apathetic remarks and half-assed protests. I'm not saying we should all be politicians, but if we put as much time and effort into making changes in government as we did following and partaking in watching televised sporting events (no offense to any sports fans, I love watching boxing and full contact martial arts on the tube), then the combined pressure we would end up putting on government would give them no choice but to make us happy. After all, we are the ones who vote them in...

By the way, not to categorize or anything, but it seems to me that most Libertarian views usually get put under the "liberal" tag. Of course, as in all things, there are always exceptions to the rule...

I applaud your political correctness, sir. This is not meant as an insult at all. After all, I myself tend to be vulgarly politically correct at times! As for the rant, my overall point was not to show how either view contributes to our gov't at all. In fact, the point was very much the opposite.

Of course there are people in our gov't, liberals and conservatives, trying to make things better. There will always be, but they will be acting on their specific code of ethics which may not be those of the populous. A liberal will almost always vote for a liberal and a conservative will almost always vote for a conservative, but when it comes right down to it, few people know the fucking difference. Think I have no clue what I am talking about? Then tell me, what the hell is a Gay Republican? That makes no sense, but they exist...

Now, I think you misunderstood. I surely don't think that gov't would work better without liberals or conservatives, I just have a problem with the label. People are never strictly one or the other, but somewhere in between. Of course, people will jump like a toad in a frying pan if you label them the opposite of what they believe themselves to be. When it comes down to it, do they really know?

Now, a big needle in my neck is when people refer to the US as a democracy. It is not a democracy, nor has it ever been. The US Government is a Constitutional Republic. We have a democratic base, but it is far from absolute.

All in all, I agree with what you wrote. Thank you for taking the time. And as far as Libertarians being labeled "liberal", it only matters from ones point of view...

Reply #2

From: anonymous
Date: Saturday, December 21, 2002 9:13 AM

A gay republican is an economic conservative, but a social liberal....in other words, a libertarian who can't bring himself to vote for someone he knows can't win.

---a libertarian

One's sexuality is not always the first thing that comes to my mind when discussing political views, but I did find what you said was very clever. Golf clap...

Reply #3

From: Derek Stewart (me109kat@charter.net)
Date: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:11 PM

Im a conservative and agree with you for the most part,at least you seem to have given both sides a fair shake,which surprised me after reading some of your views on the boogie man(satan) who I believe is real,and religon which you refered to as insignificant.Expected for you to thrash the conservative side,but not so. Dont want to make a judgement on weather or not you beleive there is a God but if there is satan then there is God at least from a Christian point of view.The word of God does distinguish between right and wrong (the Bible). Is anyone who instructs to the best of their ability after researching comparing and contrasting the subject they are "spewing", wrong? I think not.They in most areas of study have to give their interpretation except in the fields where there are absoluts such as math.It is up to the individual to pool together and analyse all their resources and information and approve their own interpretation of the word,or anything for that matter.Some common sense is useful in this process. Lets say for instance if people dont believe there is a God or creator then they must also agree that we are all no more than one of many different organisims on this earth and the rule survival of the fittist would be correct,or at least not open to judgement(there is no higher athority in exsistance).This makes Hitler a wise man to try and promote his own race and kill,destroy and take over the world if you can pull it off. Survival of the fittist.For who can stand in judgement there is no higher athority.Do people who do not believe in a God feel that they have a soul ? We are to complex not to,if evaloution is to be believed then we would never evolve some of the emotions that humans have for they would be usless.I dont buy it anyway it all points to some source of reasoning not a billion miraculous accidents one building on top of the other untill you have a fully developed Homo Sapien.I dont think pepole really sit down and think about what happens to their being when they die,I for one feel that there is much more to me and you than just this fleshy shell we inhabit for now.Its all coming to a head anyway soon we will be engauged in war with Iraq,wouldnt be surprised to see China move to take Taiwan( which they have vowed they will do)while we are preoccupied.Then Inda may use this window to take care of its dispute with Pakastain,equals WWIII.Just food for thought thanks for letting me rant. These are just my opinions and I am not trying to force anyone to buy it, to each his own, no retalitory viruses plz..

Signed Off on a Tangent

One time... in band camp...
I really want to answer this one, but I haven't the slightest idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Reply #4

From: Ric Smith (ric@ricsweb.com )
Date: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:18 PM

I think both liberals and the conservatives are smart enough to build bridges. Conservatives build toll bridges and liberals build bridges open to all.

Ow... that's gonna piss a lot of people off!

Reply #5

From: Johnbac (johnback77@yahoo.com)
Date: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:45 PM

The liberals say that they've done everything that's good and the conservatives have done everything that's bad. The conservatives say the exact same thing. This Pat is not true. These words were taken off your website. Conservatives do not blame or point fingers like the liberals do. Conservatives try to do what you are trying to say, which is work towards a common goal from which everyone can benefit. Next time you see a Republican and Democrat debate on TV watch carefully to see how many times the Democrat acts like a child pointing the finger at Conservatives or making belittling or degrading comments to them. The real truth is EVERYTHING the liberals have done has fucked up the nation. Criminals are treated better than victims in more than half the cases that enter the courts system. The lower form of life you are in this country the better you get treated. The difference is liberals want everyone to be treated "special" no matter what kind of degenerate you are, whereas Conservatives want these same people to better themselves through hard work. All civil rights movements say that everyone should be treated equal and fairly, not given special treatment. Liberals want rapist and murderers to have second chances while their victims had none. Liberals want to take the family tradition out of holidays but make the money from retail sales. Liberals want the rest of the world to have a chance at things at your expense. It is the liberal attitude and vehemence that led to the attacks of 9-11. Profiling started out as security initiated by the FBI, not racism, the liberals twisted it into that. A security system that was working fine by the way. The education system, that's always crying for money, has more money than any other department in this nation. Yet it's so corrupt monies never get to where they're supposed to go. Most of the people in the educational system are liberals. I know first hand, I work in it. The biggest two-faced, back-stabbing, hypoctites are the liberals. I, my friend, am neither, but if I had to be one I'd be a Conservative.

What color is the sky in your world?

Reply #6

From: "G.M."
Date: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:38 AM

It seems to me that this country is rather screwed in the head at what's liberal and conservative. To label one's self as one or the other is like putting salt and not the pepper on your food and vice-versa. Mankind does what it does. Either by building bridgees or by building boats. All these Nordic whites seem to like to build more boats than bridges. So Anglo Saxons were more liberal then their descendants. And the dark races seemed to build more bridges. I guess that makes them conservative. But be careful with words. For every one labelled this or that, one day that person will have a higher power label them.

Fucking what?!

Reply #7

From: Tom Anderson (tanderso.public+pquinn@oac-design.com)
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:40 AM

Liberal and conservative in the context of political idealogies are both misnomers. For instance, liberal means open to new ideas or methods not restrained by tradition, but we're presently seeing many so-called "liberal" institutions (such as New Deal programs) becoming tradition, and now "liberals" are defending these against reform even though they clearly don't work as intended. Liberal only represents these "socialist" idealogies so long as socialism is new and untraditional. This is really no longer the case.

Meanwhile, conservativism has been stolen by the Christian fundamentalists in this nation in order to steer it in a more Christian direction, falsely claiming that our country is founded on Christian ideals. In reality, most of our Christian slant was introduced during the 1950's in response to the evil atheist Communists. Many of our founding fathers weren't even Christian, but rather Deist. And they all recognized the absolute necessity for religious freedom, since intolerance is the primary force which drove them out of Europe. We were never a "Christian nation", and even though a majority may have been Christian, no single denomination ever enjoyed a majority. The wall of seperation between church and state is a cornerstone of our freedoms. Using the word conservative, which means favoring traditional views and values, to describe the Christian agenda is completely misplaced, as the traditional values of America include tolerance.

So what we're left with is the same situation as with the words "republican" and "democratic"... a new definition having very little to do with the original use of the word. I would suggest that all of these terms be abandoned in favor of more descriptive terms such as "socialist" and "theocratic".

There is also an implied premise in this discussion which is false. That premise, that these are the only two positions, is often repeated in our society, but it is a false dichotomy. Really, another axis on the left-right line exists, as illustrated in a Nolan Chart, when considering the two primary aspects of politics -- economy and government. If you add more aspects, there are more dimensions to consider.

Now, if I were to apply these revised terms (liberal=socialist, conservative=theocratic), the analogy of a person coming to a river changes immensely. In fact, it should be acknowledged that whether one is socialist or theocratic, liberal or conservative, this analogy doesn't actually address the differences. The analogy would only work if there were a group which were presented with this hurdle, as political labels really only apply to how one believes a group should behave, not an individual alone. An individual is king, and may decide to do as he pleases. But a group is governed by a compact, and the terms of their agreement are determined by their political ideology. A socialist group would split up the work equally, from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need. A theocratic group would look in their governing books to determine the ordained course of action, and their religious leader would dictate how to interpret it.

And we see here the false dichotomy of the terms liberal and conservative, since socialist describes an economic system and theocratic describes a social system. The "socialist" group here could have any number of social orders, including democracy, plutocracy, monarchy, etc. The "theocratic" group could likewise have any number of economic systems. In fact, this could be the exact same group, since they could be theocratic socialists. So then, we need to evaluate "liberal" and "conservative", as they apply today, on both axes. Not only are "liberals" socialist, they also favor elitism, where the most skilled or esteemed decide the policies for the rest. This is either plutocratic, aristocratic, or republican, or some mixture of these, as I would characterize our country today. And the "conservatives" are not just theocratic, but also laissez-fair, free-market capitalists for the most part.

So a complete definition for liberal in today's context would be "socialist republican", while a fitting definition for conservative in today's context would be "free-market theocrat". And using these terms would not only reveal our prominent political groups for what they are, it would also expose the plethora of alternatives, including "socialist theocrat" which might describe how some monasteries are governed, or "free-market republican" which is how our country was founded, and is generally called "libertarian".

"I am only an egg..."