A Hypothesis On Conservatives and Liberals

[Q Classic]

Moderates are weenies who can't be arsed to take a position. As they say in Texas, ain't nothin' in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. Which are you?

wrong-o. there are plenty of moderates like me who find that in some cases, it's better to have a sharply delimited position; but for the best practices of policy-making, you take a bit from everything.

there's no contradiction in believing abortion is morally outrageous and should never be condoned, but realizing that the way that the law stands right now, one cannot legislate in any way against it.

it's perfectly moderate to believe that the free market is best, but that there should be just enough regulation to ensure that the little man isn't always buggered by the big company man.

being moderate doesn't mean that you can't be arsed to take a position.

being moderate means that you're actually willing to listen to both sides of the argument, and try to find a common ground that will actually work.

[Kropotkin]

So you've gone from a one-dimensional (x-axis only) political spectrum to a two-dimensional (x- and y-axis), what else is new? Haven't we done these a million times already?

There has been plenty of political theorists that have contructed much more advanced models where the dimensions are so many that it's quite impossible to describe. Ie, more than three dimensions. Iirc, there was one with 16 dimensions or something like that.

[Japher]

Moderates are people who take positions the left doesnt like, yet still want to get the moral credit for opposing the right, which moral credit the left wants to monopolize.

There's no morals in politics!

we moderates think both of those groups are nuts anyway.

The Do Nothin's

[Arrian]

The Do Nothin's

No, the people who are more interested in doing than shouting at the "other side." Doing, however, usually involves compromise, which radicals and reactionaries alike despise.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
To make you hapy, Sloww, I will tell you what you are trying to say. Radicals and reactionaries are mirror images.

First of all, it's not to make me happy.
That's not likely to happen.

Radicals don't always react. They may in fact remain somewhat docile in acts, if not thoughts.
On the other extreme, what they see as "reaction" may actually be "proaction"; and either action need not occur solely from a Radical aspect.
Bush isn't a Radical, of any kind.
You may choose to disagree. That's your right.
I'm saying that a Conservative person is reacting to proactions of a set of Radicals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, Arrian is correct, the moderates are the most important people. They are the only ones who know how to compromise and get things done. Without them, nothing would really get passed except if there was some sort of violent revolt.

[Japher]

Compromise = sell-out.

Well, we can't execute criminals anymore but we can kill all the unborn babies we want!!!WooHooo...

Come on, why would some one vote for some one who is wishy-washy on their views. "I'll do my best until that becomes just to darn hard, and then I'll do what I'm able til I get whatever I'm dealt"... Moderates are wipping boys for the rest of us...

[SlowwHand]

Arrian is right?
You damned jackass!
I'm the one that all along has called himself a Moderate Independent.

Punk.

[Ben Kenobi]

Good ol' Slowwy, right on schedule.

That's an interesting point to make about moderates, that moderates are fundamentally conservative, in resisting change.

However I take fault with che's definition of progressive.

"Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats."

There are also conservative activists, but you do not have a label for them. All you have are conservatives and reactionaries.

I think we need to work out some fundamental definitions of what is liberal and what is conservative before trying to discriminate between conservatives and liberals.

Now, conservatives believe that man is inherently bad, in that regardless of the society, human nature cannot be changed.

Liberals believe just the opposite, that with the proper society, one can change people's behavior. The only reason we see people do bad things is because of the society and not the person.

That's just for starters. I want to see what other people have to say about the fundamental distinctions between liberals and conservatives.

[Arrian]

Actually, Japher, if you really despise compromise, you shouldn't even bother voting.

First off, I'd be shocked if you or I could find a political candidate whos views/party platform exactly matched either of our beliefs. Therefore, merely casting a vote is a compromise of sorts - you pick the candidate closest to your position.

Second, all politicians must compromise, or nothing gets done. The compromise is often distasteful, sure, but that's what makes it so much easier to be uncompromising. Compromise is about picking your battles - giving this to get that. You have to make difficult choices.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Compromise = sell-out.

This view leads to nothing being done except civil wars .

Arrian is right?
You damned jackass!
I'm the one that all along has called himself a Moderate Independent.

But that'd require me to say you were right.

[Japher]

True.

I generally vote purely on economic issues, and care nothing of moral or humanitarian issues... I guess I compromise there.

[SlowwHand]

Involve yourself in business.
Do it without negotiation and/or compromise.
Good luck.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I would also submit, in answer to Che, that a Libertarian by necessity would fall somewhere near the Moderate label.

This is a clear sign your chart is very wrong.

But as Che predicted, this is just gonna get us Libertarians in a tizzy. But I've seen too damn many of these to care, and y'all have been presented the Nolan chart lots of times, so I'm just gonna save my breath. Or finger movements. Or... ya know.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The spectrum of degrees involving liberal to conservative was being discussed within a thread, and the thought occured to me that the need for discussion required it's own separate and distinct thread.

Radical Liberals and Radical Conservatives, are so unknowingly close to each other, they're about to bump asses.
Let me tell you why.

Most people envision this spectum as linear, moving from Left to Right.
The concept that I present to you now, is much the same as early exploration marking the difference between a flat world, and a round world.

Liberal-------------Moderate-------------Conservative.

I don't think the increments and terminology used between either point and Moderate is that critical.
What's critical is the addition of Radical, which follows.

Rad Lib----Liberal-----Moderate----Consevative---Rad Con

Now, rather than in the linear example we see above, make it circular.
In this manner you'll see that the Radicals becomes adjoined.

I'll stop here and let the analysts analyze, and we can go from there.

What do you think? Am I making myself clear as mud, again?

So your hypothesis is that small government = big government?

[SlowwHand]

I guess you're a Radical Liberatarian, Ozzy.
Find your self a place in the middle of the circle with the other Radicals.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Stuie
Yup, it's a circle not a line, with the far right and the far left basically sharing the same ideology. I learned that in 10th grade.

Or, you can do this with it...

Oh no! It's the commie-nazis...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Compromise = sell-out.

This view leads to nothing being done except civil wars .

Well maybe its about time we had another. Lord knows you people need your clocks cleaned.

[Q Classic]

Compromise = sell-out.

if you say so. just remember, if they didn't have a compromise, you could kiss the formation of congress and our government goodbye. not that that would be a bad thing, necessarily--but can you guarantee that something better would have taken its place?

Well, we can't execute criminals anymore but we can kill all the unborn babies we want!!!WooHooo...

i think it's important to be as consistent as possible. which is why i oppose euthanasia, capital punishment, and abortion. that said, abortion is still believed by many to be a good thing, and we cannot allow a tyranny of the minority to exert its will on those who do not share those same beliefs. as for euthanasia, it's still wrong, and as long as the laws have it on the books, i'm all for keeping it illegal. if this schaivo case goes to the supremes, and they rule in favor of euthanasia, then i'll have to accept that it's legal, albeit wrong.
in such cases where what is correct is not yet believed by the majority, you cannot impose your will on them. you must convince them first.

But that'd require me to say you were right.

Sure, he's on the right.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Good ol' Slowwy, right on schedule.

That's an interesting point to make about moderates, that moderates are fundamentally conservative, in resisting change.

However I take fault with che's definition of progressive.

"Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats."

There are also conservative activists, but you do not have a label for them. All you have are conservatives and reactionaries.

I think we need to work out some fundamental definitions of what is liberal and what is conservative before trying to discriminate between conservatives and liberals.

Now, conservatives believe that man is inherently bad, in that regardless of the society, human nature cannot be changed.

Liberals believe just the opposite, that with the proper society, one can change people's behavior. The only reason we see people do bad things is because of the society and not the person.

That's just for starters. I want to see what other people have to say about the fundamental distinctions between liberals and conservatives.

Naw, thats not right at all. If anything its liberals who have the belief that man is inherently bad, or perhaps more accurately, inherently dumb and incompetant. People cannot be trusted to run their own lives and others must step in to do it for them.

This isn't just a biased interpretation I cooked up, I had a long discussion with an old girlfriend about this and this is what her political views boiled down to.

[KrazyHorse]

More like I don't trust anybody to not **** over other people if given the chance. And 10 000 years of human history proves me right.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Naw, thats not right at all. If anything its liberals who have the belief that man is inherently bad, or perhaps more accurately, inherently dumb and incompetant. People cannot be trusted to run their own lives and others must step in to do it for them.

Actually, the liberal view isn't that you needed to be protected from yourself, it's that you need to be protected from others.

This isn't just a biased interpretation I cooked up, I had a long discussion with an old girlfriend about this and this is what her political views boiled down to.

She sounds like an idiot.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Good ol' Slowwy, right on schedule.

That's an interesting point to make about moderates, that moderates are fundamentally conservative, in resisting change.

However I take fault with che's definition of progressive.

"Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats."

There are also conservative activists, but you do not have a label for them. All you have are conservatives and reactionaries.

I think we need to work out some fundamental definitions of what is liberal and what is conservative before trying to discriminate between conservatives and liberals.

Now, conservatives believe that man is inherently bad, in that regardless of the society, human nature cannot be changed.

Liberals believe just the opposite, that with the proper society, one can change people's behavior. The only reason we see people do bad things is because of the society and not the person.

That's just for starters. I want to see what other people have to say about the fundamental distinctions between liberals and conservatives.

I woud say that its radicals who believe that man is inherently good, and can so society should be remade in order to reshape man. Conservatives believe that man is inherently bad, and that society needs to control mans badness. Liberals Id say, tend to want to avoid mans nature altogether - they want the state to avoid the question and focus on pragmatic issues. Or, to put it differently, they view human nature as something good ENOUGH that it doesnt require change, and can be trusted to manage itself, for the most part. Im trying here to use liberal in the broad sense - a Lockean ideology that covers BOTH classical liberals and contemporary welfare state liberals (who I think are strongly linked, despite differences on specific policies)

[Q Classic]

aren't all ex-girlfriends idiots?

[chequita guevara]

Everybody hate-on the moderates!

[Japher]

Everybody hate-on the moderates!

I'm trying! What would an moderate extremist be?

[Q Classic]

me. and please, the term is militant moderate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher

I'm trying! What would an moderate extremist be?

Comatose.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by OzzyKP Naw, thats not right at all. If anything its liberals who have the belief that man is inherently bad, or perhaps more accurately, inherently dumb and incompetant. People cannot be trusted to run their own lives and others must step in to do it for them.

Actually, the liberal view isn't that you needed to be protected from yourself, it's that you need to be protected from others.

Quote:

This isn't just a biased interpretation I cooked up, I had a long discussion with an old girlfriend about this and this is what her political views boiled down to.

She sounds like an idiot.

She's gonna be a teacher. And my guess is her thinking isn't much different from most teacher union types. She is very intelligent, and while it may sting a bit for most liberals to admit it, I think this is a real characteristic.

Now I'm not talking leftist anarchists, they would fundamentally disagree. But her views are indicative of most mainstream liberals, socialists, and commies.

I still keep in touch, and we actually saw this division play out in a discussion the other day. I introduced her to the Wikipedia and I was extolling its virtues to her and she really had a problem with it because there was no executive oversight, editing and control over the whole project. Not to say that isn't a common criticisim, but faith in humanity is not a trait I assign to modern liberals.

KH summed up my response. Yes, people are falliable and often can't be trusted. I'd rather give that falliable person the power to screw up only his/her own life, rather than give that fallable person the power to screw up everyone's lives. My ex, and many liberals disagree. Of course many conservatives disagree too. Which is why I don't fit on your line, Sloww.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, people are falliable and often can't be trusted.

But this is a mere cynic. You can be just as much as a leftist cynic, as a conservative cynic.

Does your girlfriend believe that through bettering society, you will improve the quality of the people? That's a classical tenet of liberalism.

People cannot be trusted to run their own lives and others must step in to do it for them.

This stems from the concept that through improving society you can improve the person, therefore, society ought to be able to take care of people so that they can be improved.

Just because she would trust an executive oversight, does not mean that she lacks faith in people, just that she trusts the executive to assert control and authority.

Sounds like a liberal authoritarian, a truly modern concept.