If Myckob doesn't mind me mentioning him by name, I site him as an example of someone who sometimes sounds rather hostile to anyone who is a 'conservative'. This is not my understanding of conservative (lower case c). He is referring to political conservatism.
Quote, "One who espouses a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Conservative
I suggest that a political liberal can be a conservative too. That was the case with Churchill, for example, who crossed the floor from Liberal to Conservative party in the UK. Perhaps conservative (note when I use lower or higher case c) has come to mean different things in the USA to what it does in the UK? The USAmerican conservatives seem to adhere to an ideology and even take pride in doing so. They seem almost to bristle at being called liberal, which perhaps accounts for the use Myckob makes of the word? That contrasts with UK PM Teresa May's assertion that her actions aren't motivated by ideology, but presumably like mine as what we see as the balance of arguments.
This is interesting as most USAmericans appear to me to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, much as in Britain and Ireland.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The last political analysis test I took classified me as a Libertarian.
*The constitution is the law of the land.
* Pro abortion - a woman has a right to her own body. (To a degree. Abortion is not birth control. There should be a limit and a consequence.)
* Pro gun. Our guns protect us from the government. All states should be independent and have regulated militias. I am 100% against the nationalization and militarization of the police.
*Pro border control. I know of no country in the world that does not protect its boarders. People who are illegal within the country should be removed. It really is just that simple. I live in Korea and I go to immigration once every 2 years to renew my contracts and my stays. I am here legally. People who are not here legally are rounded up by police and escorted out of the country. I see no problem with that at all.
* I hate religion (a bit of an anti-theist). It is the oldest con game on the planet. Churches should pay taxes like any other business and if they have non-prophet status the money they make should go to helping the poor and not creating universities or buying jets for their pastors. Religion is BS.
*While Hillary is a criminal and she needs to be locked away every time Trump opens his mouth and says something about God, I want to vomit. Is this really the best our political system has to offer us, a criminal or a moron?
You keep repeating that Hilary Clinton is a criminal, Cognostic, but provide no evidence whatever. There have been no credible allegations and no successful prosecution. Anyway, your comment is irrelevant to what this thread is about.
For me, it depends completely on individual issues. I would refer to myself as neither conservative nor liberal. Based on my opinion on individual issues, others may categorize me as one or the other, but I think there are far too many concerns for which one might form an opinion to cattle-shoot folks into one or the other.
@ZeffD
I don't mind you using my name at all.
Now to address what you posted in the OP.
I would like to explain something. The meaning of Liberal and conservative is far different than what people understand.
Conservatives have attempted to hijack morality and actually redefine morality. They redefine it as religious obedience, submission to and obedience to corporate America, and a NAZI like populace nationalist perverted patriotism.
The fact is that Liberalism is based on morality, basic human rights.
So if you observe a Liberal you may indeed think that they are "conservative" as they are highly moral. It is an innate trait of Liberals to be highly ethical and moral. Respecting others individual rights being responsible for one's own actions, caring for society, the environment.
The thing is that conservative actually means preserving wealth and assets of the rich using institutions to do so. Using institutions to deny opportunity to others, maintaining an imbalance of wealth and assets and calling that imbalance "traditional values."
Liberalism and progressivism move to create and ensure opportunity even to the point of tearing down institutions that work against opening up opportunity thus denying individual rights. So the answer to your OP question is NO you cannot be a conservative and a Liberal.
I very much appreciate your response, Myckob, as I think this is the crux:
quote: The thing is that conservative actually means preserving wealth and assets of the rich using institutions to do so. Using institutions to deny opportunity to others, maintaining an imbalance of wealth and assets and calling that imbalance "traditional values."
Unquote.
You then give your personal definition of liberal. I recommend using that of the dictionary and here is why that's important...
Contrast M's definitions with the dictionary definition I presented. "One who espouses a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change."
I think you are unconsciously doing the work of the extreme Republicans for them.Extremists aim to divide people into 'conservatives' and 'liberals' as you (Myckob) define them and make them opposing, winner or loser sides. These right wing extremist Republicans have almost made liberal a dirty word among their supporters. Don't assist in that by trying to make 'conservative' a dirty word too.
USAmericans are all democrats and republicans (note the letter case). The USA is special as it is THE economic and military superpower and English speaking. No nation comes close to US influence. The world needs to be divided on issues, not ideologies and tribes. We are all condemned to follow US influence, so USAmericans need to think very carefully before abandoning the current definitions and altering them to the ones you are insisting upon.
https://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/web?q=liberal+definition&o=APN11908&ch...
All creatures great and small. When I was in primary school in the 1960s, 'great' meant the opposite of small. That's all. Then US children started to use the expression "That's great!", meaning that is wonderful or marvellous. Now look at the dictionary definition of great...
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/great
The connotations of grand, very good, excellent and so forth have had to be added. That is an example of US influence on the English language.
Note too that the UMP political party in France have re-branded themselves as Republicains.
Also, please consider Cyber's constructive comment above.
USAmericans collectively have a very special and unique responsibility for the future of society in functional democracies. The peace and cooperation of mankind depends on what USAmericans do and what they think. I will preserve the current definitions as best I can, but your nation's decision will be final, not mine. I urge you to accept the current dictionary definitions and define people's opinions, not their persons with those terms. I think that would be consistent with Cyber's comment too.
This matters to me as I would like us all to be on the same page on this matter. I think it is important and I think you are harming the concepts of liberalism and conservatism by redefining and applying them to persons rather than opinions.
I disagree Zeff.
I did not redefine anything. Years ago in college, I was required to take sociology. It defined conservatism just as I stated it. It cited as reference everything from the Bill of Rights to the Communist Manifesto. The conflict between conservatism and Liberalism is as old as democracy itself. The conflict began with the concept of the "hero" on a Grecian Urn. The conflict is probably older but that is considered the beginning of two basic emerging idealisms.
The hero was a description of human taking charge of their own destinies. It debunked the theory of gods of traditional rule based on institutions that did nothing but preserved wealth and power for the already rich and powerful. It opened the door of opportunity for all. It rewarded ideas creativity invention and progress. It is the basis of democracy for Liberalism and individual freedom, for civil rights and humanity.
I didn't redefine it. I referenced it.
I think the dictionary proves your sociology course was a nonsense - reference what it likes. Either that or you simply misunderstood some of it. You certainly did redefine 'conservative'. Your definition and that of the dictionary are there for all to see. Still, I'm sure the likes of Trump and Steve Bannon will be delighted as what you assert works fine for them. I suppose extremists and fundamentalists could be described as conservative, but it would still be wrong to lump my views in with theirs. The far right of the Republican party is ultra-conservative perhaps.
My opinions remain fiscally conservative, socially liberal and dictionary literate, so we'll have to just disagree on this. Thanks for your replies.
I consider myself an extreme civil libertarian. For instance, I don't advocate for marriage equality, I advocate for marriage freedom. A woman should be able to have as many wives and/ or husbands she can juggle. However, the libertarians have not solved major social problems such as how to care for elderly people with no income or protecting the environment. I wish the Social Democrats would advocate for an extreme approach to personal freedoms.
In the course of history ZeffD, those on the conservative side of the aisle have always used institutions to deny equal and fair opportunity to those born less fortunate. Those on the Liberal side of the political aisle have always strived to create and maintain equal opportunity for all. Those that take aspects of a political idealism and ignore the rest can only define themselves with their vote. In the event that they don't agree with a conservative candidate over social issues but vote for them anyway because they embrace the fiscal views of that candidate have essentially marked themselves to be entirely in line with the ideology as the candidate that they voted to represent them will not consider their views socially and will, in fact, write and pass laws to be in line with the party ideology. Thus since the conservative parties around the world have embarked on an extremist strategy and policy it can only be concluded that the people that vote for them and their candidates are indeed by action extremists themselves. You mentioned Trump and Bannon as only representing the far right and extremist views of conservatives but that is not the case. Yes, they are extremist and yet they are the ones representing conservatism as a whole. Until conservatives reject the extremist Trump and Bannon and stop protecting and stop apologizing for them all conservatives are just as extremist.
The thing is that many republican/conservatives that reject the direction that the party has taken now define themselves as Libertarian thinking that this in some way is closer to the ideals of the founders of this nation. But Libertarian is a party born out of the inability for one man to win his nomination, and in no way represents anything remotely Liberal. The fact is that Libertarian has come to represent the removal of all federal government and the oversight of that government, instead favoring a pay as you go ideal. This ignores the true aspect of Liberalism which is to create and maintain an equal opportunity for all, to protect the environment to remain secular and respect individual rights and freedoms. To pay as you go denies people that born to unfortunate circumstance and only favors the rich in the guise of rewarding the productive. If one is denied education, denied the opportunity to be productive they cannot participate in the rewards of society. It is a weird anarchy. Understand that most laws are written for a reason. Marriage laws are written to protect those concerned over the distribution of property. Monopoly laws are written to prevent large corporations from owning the entire market share and therefore overcharging for the product or service. Some laws become obsolete and should be repealed or amended but that doesn't mean that government is not necessary. The lie of a "nanny state" or the "welfare queen" is just hyperbole and propaganda. Liberal does not mean socialist or communist as libertarians and conservatives would have you think.
Myk, you wrote, “But Libertarian is a party born out of the inability for one man to win his nomination,”
Who was that?
@CyberLN his name was Dan Nolan 1972 Colorado Springs.
Are you talking about David Nolan? If so, he was a founding member (one of several), but it’s my understanding he didn’t run for any office until decades later.
I have read a bunch of propaganda surrounding the Libertarian party, most of it coming from the highly propagandist rightwing Cato Institute. Dick Nolan ran as a republican in 1970 and lost his parties nomination in the primary which prompted him to create the Libertarian Party.
I have read the party platform but it doesn't and has never followed that agenda. All I have witnessed from the Libertarian Party was to rail against any tax all regulation in any form, against all federal agencies except the DOD. It's nothing but conservative anarchy at best. And when they lose which they always do they immediately endorse republicans, any fucking republican to include Oliver North who committed TREASON for crying out loud. I have no use for them. They often argue that they are "classic liberals" which is the biggest lie of all. They are pseudo-anarchist with a right-wing twist.
First you said Dan, I asked if you meant David, now you’re saying Dick Nolan?
Myk, please provide some data. I think you’ve got some incorrect info there.
I'm sorry I wrote from memory and I don't do well with names. I meant David. In 1970 he didn't run but the candidate he endorsed lost. They were a faction in the republican party trying to institute AynRand idealism. In 1970 Nixon took the US off of the gold standard which was one of the reasons for the split. BUUUUUT in no way shape or form are they true or classic liberals. Ayn Rand was a wacko with extremist views that ignored people that as of no fault of their own lack opportunity. The no laws, no regulation, no government idea is short-sighted and naive. The "what the market will bear is a fantasy and ignores the fact that corrupt monopolies control both sides of the market, not just supply side.
I agree in some respects but when has liberalism ever advocated for "create and maintain an equal opportunity for all, to protect the environment to remain secular and respect individual rights and freedoms". JFK did not advocate for the rights of gays or the rights of people to smoke weed without legal repercussions.
The answer Chimp is ALWAYS! Kennedy did need to do anything about "weed" it wasn't against Federal Law at the time. Nixon started the war on drugs. As for Gay rights, you're right Kennedy did not advocate for specific rights because everyone has civil rights. What is needed is to RECOGNIZE that fact and strike down all laws that deny civil rights.
The Boggs Act of 1952 enacted 2 - 10 year prison sentences for a first time conviction for possession of marijuana.
The Boggs Act specifically dealt with import and export of narcotics.
So that means it wasn’t against federal law?
I can't find anything before 1972 that states that the use of drugs is illegal to include Opium, cocaine, and other narcotics.
Nixon federalized laws that were existing state laws when he began his war on drugs. Essentially Nixon was trying to find an excuse to arrest his political enemies.
I brought up Boggs because you wrote, “ Kennedy did need to do anything about "weed" it wasn't against Federal Law at the time”. Boggs certainly is an indication that there were federal laws in place concerning marijuana. So, just providing some adjustments to information.
Possession of marijuana was defacto illegal before 1969 because there was a federal tax imposed on it; but the federal government typically refused to collect that tax (making it impossible to legally posses it). It would be like if the IRS refused to accept income tax payments; it would essentially make having an income illegal.
I've always aligned with the liberal side of the spectrum. Having said that, some self proclaimed liberals out there are getting really far left. This spoiling it for real liberals and the progress of real liberal goals/solutions.
The fact is that the farthest left you go you end up on the right side of the aisle. You may consider me extremist in my views but I am not socialist, nor communist, and certainly not an anarchist. I AM pushing the wall left on the Liberal spectrum but I am still mainstream Liberal. I would like nothing better than to cooperate with conservatives but they don't leave that as an option. In fact, in the US conservatives have moved so far to the right that they can't see the center. I don't see it as spoiling anything just because I will not agree to what conservatives are not proposing but are ramming down our throats. There are things that you simply cannot piecemeal or compromise on such as basic human rights or environmental protection. Take Flint Michigan water supply for example. How much poison would you agree to?
You see corrupt corporations and the conservatives that they have bought count on a compromise to achieve an endgame win. They want Liberals to compromise their principles and or be shut out of the game. It is a classic lawsuit tactic. I want to win $1 million dollars so I'll sue for 10 million.
Take this conservative idea. A wall with Mexico. It isn't about protecting against crime, it's all about racism. Almost all international terrorist entered the United States directly or through Canada. The conservatives scream that gangs and illegal drugs come from Mexico and a lot does but most organized crime actually comes from Russia and China in this nation over half of the illegal drugs come directly from China via internet orders. So the wall (which wouldn't work) is all about race. BTW the only reason Latins come to this nation is because white Americans hire them because white Americans don't want to pay a fair wage nor do they want to pay for benefits of wage taxes. Start arresting the people that hire illegal aliens and there would be no illegal alien problem!
there are a host of issues that we simply cannot compromise on. If that is extremist then you can call it that but I call it the right thing to do!