Liberals vs. Conservatives

[Voltaire]

I've read several posts on these boards (many of them well written), and a single theme seemed to stick out of many of them: Liberal Doctrine and Conservative Doctrine

I wanted to start a post to debate this concept.

Here's a list of the basic rundown (according to words, rather than current states of affairs)-

Liberal- One who wants change, open to differences, willing to try new things

Conservative-One who wants things to stay the way they are, normally closed-minded

Moderates- One who tries to find a 'happy-medium'

Now, in US politics, the two major parties, the Democrats (seen as liberals, for common people) and the Republicans (seen as conservatives, for big business) seem to be becoming more and more like each other.

In the past, they both used to defend rights in some particular area, but with recent bills, such as the 'PATRIOT' Act, make the government bigger and give it the ability to spy on individuals the government considers "Un-American." Because of the vague wording of this document, any activity the government does not like (someone speaking out against the act, for instance), could be considered 'Un-American.'
This reek of the phrase "Big Brother is watching!" from 1984.

The problem lies that many of the so called 'liberals' accepted this proposal, while 'Conservatives' violated their party's base of 'individual rights' to pass this.

If this isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Because of the decline of both parties' morals, for this topic, let's avoid confusing the Democrats and Republicans with real liberals and conservatives.

Back to the topic. Which do you think is better-

The 'Liberal' point of view- Keep an open mind, try new things, do not be afraid to express yourself.

Comments: If not for people with 'liberal' mindsets, the Western world would be full of monarchies rather democracies or republics. Liberals wanted people to take the power, rather than a centralized group of 'conservatives.'

The 'Conservative' point of view- Keep a closed mind, do things only that will ensure your power, keep everyone else 'in their place.'

Comments: Whenever a revolution occurs, the Conservatives are the ones normally revolted against. In Soviet Russia/Iran/China, the 'Conservatives' were hard-liners that paid no heed to the opinions of the general populace.

Feel free to post any more comments or responses.

[Blaise]

Who ever posted that junk is wrong.(I will try not to ridicule him)Conservatives are not closed minded jerks that he makes them out to be. Here is a revision of the definitions:
Conservative:Responsible, make informed judgments, probably the only reason scienctific advances. Some are bad people but very few.
Liberal: Irresponsible, makes reckless judgments. not always as some aren't horrible.
If every body was out "expressing themselves" nothing would get done. If I or many others "expressed ourselves" the world would be in chaos.

PS: Your remark on the revolutions are pretty far off. The Monarchs were never in full power and when they wanted to do something their puppet masters wouldn't let them. You also used China and Russia as examples for that, look how well those revolutions worked out. Innocent people were slaughtered and Russia collapsed into a state of hookers and drugs and until recently was run by a drunk.

[Voltaire]

For the Monarchy example, I'll give you some credit.

However, the Monarchs' puppet masters were Churches, a set of very 'conservative' organizations.

As for your definitions, I quote:

"Conservative:Responsible, make informed judgments, probably the only reason scienctific advances. Some are bad people but very few."

A good deal of Conservatives opposed technological and scientific advance, such as Bishop Wilberforce when Darwin published his Origin of Species. Some didn't want the people to think for themselves, or they would lose public support.

The type of 'Conservativism' I despise is not 'Classical Conservativism' (Free minds, free markets), but hypocritical conservatives, such as the Pharisees that crucified Jesus, the Church that condemned adulteers while having affairs themselves, the business leaders that whine for government bailouts, etc.

"Liberal: Irresponsible, makes reckless judgments. not always as some aren't horrible."

Normally, 'liberalism' requires an open mind, and for this reason, a good deal of scientists are 'liberal.' As for 'irresponsibly,' many liberals support weapons control laws (responsibility for arms owners), business standards (such as greater fuel efficiency rates on cars rather than the votes of bought out pseudo-conservative Republicans or the equally corrupt pseudo-liberal Democrats.), and corporate crime (responsibility for business owners.)


Define 'Reckless judgments' and this debate can continue.

[Blaise]

I admit that a lot of the stuff I wrote was unsupported and unneccessary. I was talking about two different things. But people can only be judged by their actions. To classify two broad categories by both our definitions is wrong. Everybody to some degree is corrupt. The only one who wasn't was nailed to a cross. The people you describe do not believe in conservative values only themselves.

[SleepyTemplar]

Perhaps you two might get some objective definitions up for the political sides you're arguing about. You might also shed some light as to the topic of this conversation- is it simply discussing the differences of the liberal and conservative sides?

BLAISE:

Off on a tangent, but I should point out that were the Christian god were to exist, it would be either evil or impotent. See my argument from gratuitous suffering for details. That, and there's no credible evidence for a historic Jesus.

[Magi]

All very fitting imposing arguments on both halves. The moderates are only blinded thinking they can find a middle path. In reality, the world fears both change and stagnance. It's impossible to please anyone as a whole, and that in turn makes Liberals and convservatives equally loatheable or desirable. Depending on what nations are founded upon can easily influence the public opinion on these. Both positions are quite horrible in some aspects and create far too much conflict in the world today. It seems that as Liberals and Consevatives being opposites that there has to be a "middle way" Such as the moderates you spoke of. But the moderates as stated live in a dream world. As long as there is not one single form exists, there will be conflict. Do not think the conflict would end if say there was nothing but Liberals. New conflicts would arise such as perhaps rebellions striving to revive older ways of thinking. In reality seperate ideas and movements make the world go round. We can't function with a single minded way of thinking. It's the differences that bind us similarly yet at the same time tear us further apart. Therefore I conclude there is no right or wrong, better or worse. As horrible as one may seem, they always have their ups and downs. Of course this is just my young naive opinion on the world. If you don't agree with me, give it no further thought.