Entwhat? Where's the debate?

[BeardofPants]

Bite me son of Bob.

Nurv - I simply meant that we're all close-minded to a certain extent. ::shrug:: I would be classified as liberal, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't WTF with some of the notions that conservatives like to keep huggin' to their collective chests.

[Beor]

Its actually Bill son of Bill son of Bill. Though there is a Bob in the family. Anyway, as a liberal, you should be WTF with conservative ideals. Assuming WTF means What the *uck.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Those are hardly classical definitions of either "Liberal" or "Conservative" - so I don't know where you're getting them from.

They aren't the classical definitions of Republican and Democrat, or Communism and Capitalism, but they are the realistic definitions of how governments work. The Democratic Republic of China is no more what it calls itself than the Soviet Union was really communist.

Even in our own country, their are many liberal republicans and conservative democrats in terms of their actions. They just don't espose those labels for political reasons.

Originally Posted by Valandil

And if you want to class Hitler with conservatism, don't forget to mention Stalin and Mao Tse Tung as bastions of liberalism.

Actually Stalin and Mao were conservative in practice as well. They were totalitarianists, though they went under the flag of communism. Their governments were state-run capitalism, not communism.

They certainly were not liberal, as they gave the general populace absolutely no say in how they ran their lives at all. I don't think you can find a liberal principle in either of those two rulers.

Conservatism is the "father knows best" mentality. Stability being paramount. And the ultimate conservative government is the benevolant dictator. Someone with god-like morality who is a just, but absolute ruler. It is a perfect system in it's ideal, the problem is finding the benevolant dictator.

Liberalism is much more messy. It puts the decisions in the hands of the people as much as possible, for good or for bad. Everything is open for debate, and the majority decide what is best.

The US strives to be a balance between the two, giving a decent amount of respect to conservatism and stability, but leaving the final decision to the much more liberal realm of the people.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Well... if by open-minded you mean to all but conservative ideas.

It depends upon how you define "conservative".

If you mean the kind of conservative that believes that change should be slow and measured, I think you find that among some liberals.

However, if you mean the kind of conservative that thinks change, in and of itself, is generally a bad thing, then you are correct.

I think that the core difference between people, no matter what label you wish to put upon them, is between those that accept and embrace change and those that fight it tooth and nail.

And this mirrors society as well. It is no coincidence that those who are generally better off in the world shy from change, while those who are not are generally looking for it.

[Valandil]

Brownjenkins - I actually thought your definitions of conservative and liberal were backwards. Certainly in an economic / governmental sense.

As I have always understood it, the conservative outlook is one of "hands off" (my French spelling is awful and I never want to bother to look things up, but is it something like "lassai faire"??). This idealistically involves smaller government, and letting things "work themselves out".

The liberal outlook has been of government involvement. The government has an answer for everything and will provide a safety net. Liberals are often in favor of higher taxation in order to fund more government programs.

In a sense involving morals, this seems a bit reversed, largely because there's a strong traditional element in our culture. These people have very strong feelings that certain proposed changes would be detrimental to society. These are our social-conservatives.

Yes - I certainly understand that democrat does not always = liberal and republican does not always = conservative. The current republican congress has spent just like they used to criticize the democrats for doing.

Conversely, the democratic party has changed drastically. A generation or two ago, it was the party of the working man - and would be very conservative morally (while the republican party was more associated with "big business"). In fact, if I recall correctly, I think high-profile liberals like Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson were all pro-life back in the 1960's (while the "Goldwater Republicans" were pretty much pro-choice - EDIT: if anyone was, because most people in America were probably pro-life then - but if anything, the old-time republicans were somewhat like today's libertarians). But over the course of time, the democratic party tried to broaden its appeal and become more of a coalition of special-interests. Eventually, it's base (think morally conservative labor) got somewhat aliened.

Ronald Reagan saw that as an opportunity to turn things around. He was very strongly pro-life, and drew what we now consider "social conservatives" into a coalition with the "economic conservatives" who had historically made up the republican party.

I think you're wrong though - to say that liberals tend to approach things with an open mind, and that conservatives approach things with a solution set in stone. That's not only a vast over-simplification - it's a reversal of the truth, on many issues.

As to what you say about liberals embracing change and conservatives fearing it - I also disagree with that. Some say that people (or some group of people) are afraid of change. I just think that most people tend to evaluate what change or changes are being proposed, and form an idea of whether they think it's a good change or not.

Anyway - I have refrained from active debate, and don't especially wish to re-engage in it. Partly just because of my status as a mod here - but maybe even more because of time limitations.

And maybe most of all... because it never seems to do any good.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Those are hardly classical definitions of either "Liberal" or "Conservative" - so I don't know where you're getting them from.

And if you want to class Hitler with conservatism, don't forget to mention Stalin and Mao Tse Tung as bastions of liberalism.

I don't know much about Mao Tse Tung, but how could Hitler and Stalin be either conservative or liberal? I think mass-murdering dictators transcend political definition.

edit:

It's "laissez-faire".

But that doesn't always apply to conservative governments. There's "big government conservatism" a la Teddy Roosevelt and GW Bush (excepting gun control in this case).

[Valandil]

"big government conservatism" is a contradiction in terms.

There can be those who are conservative in SOME areas, who also advocate government. Or - conservatives can get caught up in creating government programs to attempt to provide services for their constituents (in hopes it will get them re-elected). Or - there can be liberal actions taken under the guise of conservatism.

What we have today is basically run-away spending by a group that was elected, in part, on a platform of fiscal responsibility.

We also have increased military action - which is costly anyway.

But... Teddy Roosevelt might have been considered a liberal of his time - although he would probably be considered very conservative in our time (and his government would have been very small by comparison to today's).

[brownjenkins]

Conservative and Liberal have nothing to do with economic policy. They have everything to do with how one views change.

From dictionary.com:

Conservative
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun 8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.

Liberal
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

[Lief Erikson]

In my experience, liberals are just like conservatives or any other human in that they gain knowledge and from that knowledge form views, and hence biases, and because of those biases, they refuse to let go of any of their positions, no matter how thoroughly those positions have been crushed in debate. I've experienced that endlessly in the debate forums of this site, as well as in debate with fellow students or professors at college. Sometimes, I feel that I have entirely crushed the opposing arguments that face me, and that the person I'm confronting is now just pulling at straws and has no evidence left at all. However, in the final analysis, winning the debate and disproving all the other person's arguments has never changed that person's mind.

From all my experience with liberals, I definitely wouldn't categorize liberals in general as open-minded. I have scarcely met any that I think actually are open-minded, and with the one liberal who I do actually think is somewhat open-minded, I think that that person is only open-minded on a few issues. Neither would I classify conservatives in general as open-minded. From my experience of knowing them and being one, I would not consider them to be so. From what I've seen on this site and experienced here, as well as while debating with people of other views in college, I'd say that almost no one is open-minded.

But being open-minded kind of stinks anyway, so I don't care. No offense intended, anyone who thinks him or herself to be open-minded .


Here's my thesis, something I've seen over and over again in my own personal experience, at college and elsewhere. Education is the source of all bias. Generally, though not always, the more someone knows, the more biased that person will be.

Being unbiased stinks because knowledge leads to people forming views, and views lead to people having bias. If you have a view and reasons to support it, that you will automatically reject opposing views until they have been shown to have equal support to your own is only natural. Bias is just the predisposition to reject someone else's view, an automatic rejection that will occur in someone even before he or she has heard the evidence supporting that view. Such a predisposition must exist until the contrary view presented has been shown to have equal evidence to that which one has oneself. If such a predisposition does not exist even though one has evidence supporting one's view, then one is simply being weak. One should have a predisposition to reject opposing views, or in other words, should be biased, until sufficient evidence has been displayed supporting the other position. Otherwise, one is not really looking at the evidence in a critical way but is just being accepting of anything someone else says. Aside from being weak in this way, the only other way to be unbiased is to be ignorant. If you don't have evidence before you, you don't have a view, in which case you don't have a predisposition against opposing views. I'm ignorant about plenty of things, and about those things that I'm ignorant about, I'm unbiased. Which stinks for me .

So being unbiased is just being either weak or ignorant- you do and should have a predisposition against opposing views until either your own view has been invalidated or theirs shown to have good support. Then you shift into being unbiased, or ignorant, for you no longer have a view, or you will remain biased, for your view might be able to simply stretch to take into account the other facts that have been revealed. So one should have this predisposition to reject an opposing position until it has proven itself, and to be accepting of one's own view because it is supported. That predisposition to accept or reject is bias, and that bias will and should exist in any rational individual. One should reject what has not yet proven itself and goes against one's own evidence until it proves itself or one's own position is knocked asunder. One should be biased against something because of one's own evidence, until it shows itself valid.

So there are plenty of issues on which I'm unbiased, and some issues on which I'm biased, and I hope to become more and more biased as time goes on.

[brownjenkins]

When I post about issues, the idea of "winning" never even crosses my mind. I just like to explore ideas, and help others explore them as well. Then we all win.

[Lotesse]

Well, I think you are both the cat's meow and the lion's roar, Brownjenkins, and I absolutely love these posts wherein you explain things. And I loved reading that conservative/liberal dictionary breakdown; that was very cool, very straightforward and no frills. It is what it is, right? Things aren't as complicated and confusing in this world as people sometimes like to make them. Things are what they are, when you break it down.

Much love for my homie Brownjenkins. Love & respect! As always... *swoons a little...*

[GreyMouser]

Yes, dictionary definitions of conservative and liberal can give you a general idea of their meaning, but like most words, they acquire lives of their own when used in the wide world.

The original political meanings came into use in the 18th-19th Century. European liberalism originated with people like Adam Smith and John Locke, and emphasised individual freedom- free enterprise, free speech, democracy and equal rights- often referred to as classical or Manchester liberalism. Conservatism at the time was the belief in a fixed social order- hereditary nobility, monarchy, an Established Church -and was associated with landed property rather than the new capitalist/industrialist classes.

America never had a conservative movement in this sense- it's always been a battle between two branches of liberalism. Old-style conservatism has pretty well disappeared in Europe as well- the last vestiges in Britain were extinguished by Maggie Thatcher when she overthrew the Tory elements in the Conservative Party. Her statement that "there is no such thing as society" would have horrified earlier generations of Conservatives.

"Liberalism" split after its triumph, with the "do-gooder" wing evolving into modern liberalism and beyond that into socialism, while the laissez-faire supporters became modern conservatives- born with Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France"- absorbing the older reverence for tradition and suspicion of the liberal ideal of progress- "you can't change human nature"

There's always been a conflict in conservatism (especially in America) between the older more pessimistic view- with both Christian and Classical roots- and the sunnier optimism exemplified by Ronald reagan.

Liberalism's conflicts have been about the nature of liberty- is "freedom from" sufficient, or does society (i.e. the government) have to take active steps to ensure "freedom to"- such as affirmative action.

This leads to some of the more complicated positions we see today- liberals favouring social freedom - right to choose, drug liberalisation, equal rights for gays- while opposing economic freedom- more taxes, restrictions on land use, safety and health regulations.

Conservatives, OTOH, favour unrestricted property rights and the free market, while advocating government control of people's lives- not only on issues such as censorship, abortion or Terri Schiavo, but also in favour of government surveillance.

So now you have liberals in favour of hate speech laws and conservatives opposed to habeas corpus.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

In the 1920's and early 30's, Germany was bankrupt, morally and physically destroyed, militarily laughable and utterly in chaos. Within six years of coming to power, Hitler took an utterly crushed Germany and made the country able to take on the world again. It's only the eventual entry of the Yanks into the war, and the disastrous decision to invade Russia that caused Germany to be defeated.

Utterly defeated, starving and bankrupt in 1919: Conquering Europe in 1939, with a massive military and economic structure to back it up.

It's really impressive, however you look at it. A similar thing can be said about the Japanese (a backwards civilisation that modernised incredibly rapidly so as to sink almost the entire US Fleet and conquer most of s.e. Asia)

Well, that’s just one "endeavour". Let’s start with that.

Except that Germany was not bankrupt or physically destroyed in the 1920s.

While Germany had suffered huge manpower losses because of WWI (though proportionately much fewer than France) its econmy had not ben destroyed- physical structure was intact, and not one foreign soldier had set foot on German soil. The hyper-inflation of the early 20s was overcome, and Germany under the Weimar was well on the way to retaking its natural place as the most powerful country in Europe.

What it lacked was political stability, due to the opposition of the Right to democracy and the cultivation of the "stab-in-the-back " mythos.

When the Depression hit, Hitler was able to capitalise on this. His economic policies were originally successful because they broke with orthodoxy and actually used a Keynesian policy- government spending to fill up the gap in private investment- same as Roosevelt was trying to do in the States, except that Hitler had the advantage of being able to have any opponents taken out and shot.

The downside of Hitler's policies was his funnelling of his deficit spending into the military, instead of re-investing in the productive activity; the Nazi economy was looking at serious trouble in 1938-39.

If any of the 1,000 events in Hitler's admittedly remarkable career had gone wrong- the man was a political genius- Germany would still have been the most powerful country in Europe in 1939, as it emerged in the same way after WWII, would have shrugged off the Versailles Treaty and would not have launched a disastrous war on its neighbours.

In short, Adolf was a big poo-poo head.

[captain carrot]

If you have a concern, please do not drag a current thread off topic with it, as you seem to have been wont to do in the past, CC. Instead, why not try PMing an Admin?

Thank you.

-Tessar

[captain carrot]

wonder what Lief thinks, heh?

[Lizra]

I'm all debated out....hate the debate ...humorous, semi-serious wisecracks are good ......But I like reading the others, if I'm in a certain mood.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

So now you have liberals in favour of hate speech laws ...

Yes - very odd!!!!

In short, Adolf was a big poo-poo head.

Now there is a succinct summary!

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

In short, Adolf was a big poo-poo head.

Haha, wubs j00 GM.

[The Gaffer]

Gordon Bennett, it wasnae meant to be yet another etymological debate.

Liberal and conservative are poor terms because they have so many meanings. I prefer the Political Compass method: a "left-right" axis (of the extent of collectivism in the economic system) and an "authoritarian-libertarian" axis (on the extent of state control).

However, I deliberately used the term "neocon" because it is their "project" that has sunk before it got out of the harbour, as predicted.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...967420,00.html for more details.

The failure of the occupation has shown the limitations of [US] power - which every country, from Iran and Syria to Israel and Saudi Arabia (not to mention Hizbullah and Hamas), will have noted.

I know plenty of "conservatives" who opposed the war too.

And it is not enough to just say "everyone is just as bad as each other", because they're not. With the neocons holding the reigns of power, one would hope for some sort of accountability. Compare with Clinton, who was effectively hounded out of office for lying about Monica Lewinski.

[captain carrot]

Talk about proving a point for me!

i answer a direct relevant answer to the thread title ...what entmoot debate?? ... by saying it has become over-moderated ... a genuine point and entirelyon topic ... and i get moderated .. i.e. my post deleted

anyone want to argue what stops debate on enmoot?

(wotcha Eddy baby btw! )

sheesh.