conservatives and liberals?

[TomF]

On another thread, the claim was made that the bilge is now dominated by liberals. That many of the conservative posters have walked away, and the remaining ones are outnumbered.

Do folks think that's true? It doesn't feel like my experience of this place ... Or is it an example of how "liberal" and "conservative" are defined differently in different countries. I'd venture that many "conservatives" in Canada would be considered "liberals" in the US.

t.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

I do not think people are so easily defined. The media and talk radio would like to think it is that way.It makes it easy to target market. Personally I have very liberal ideas on certain issues and conservative ideas on other issues. For the most part on this forum I have been branded by most as liberal leaning. Even though I'm pro death penalty and for more conservative fiscal spending in our government. I'm for family values as long as its not legislated by the government. I believe in God and attend mass frequently, but I don't want my government to be dictating a particular religious theology. I'm for the legal rites of woman to choose what to do with their bodies but personally against abortion in my personal life. I'm for smaller government but I think a great society should help those less fortunate. I think art and music should be as important as reading and writing and math in our schools. I'm against the war in Iraq but I support the young men and woman who have to be there. I vote in every election and so I feel I have the right to question my leaders. I do not need a gun in my life but I support the rights of those that think they need one. I do not however think it should be a free ride it should take as much work to get a gun as it takes to get a drivers license. And all guns should be registered and Donn's method of insurance works for me. I think education and health care in this country should be free affordable housing should also be available. Other than that you should have to work hard to get anything you can in life. Life should be hard it will make you appreciate the things you acquire. Well thats about it if I think of more I will let you know. I guess I come out as a liberal in the wash but so be it.

[Jack Heinlen]

Projection. ;)

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

I hope to project it on some of our elected officials. I wonder if Voting is yet another form of projecting ;)

[ 05-09-2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[Ross M]

Dominated?

Certainly not the way I keep score. I think Centrists win most of the debates.

Ross

[Chris Coose]

Kind of ironic that this was the title to a thread that Stan introduced himself to the forum with.

I'd like to think that many dubya goose-steppers have lost their edge in the bilge because dubbya is near impossible to stand behind.

The lies, the agendas, the economics, the creation of a huge government, the foreign policies, the hypocracy etc. are difficult to swallow even for the staunchest.

I've been bothered that some of my thinking conservative wood bnoat brothers have been able to figure past these conflicts.
Scott Rosen may have written for many of the missing a couple of weeks ago.

[yorgie]

Joe,you'd definitely be a conservtive by Canadian standards.The center post has been getting kicked so far to the left that it's in a realm of absurdity now.You just have to follow the Vancouver city council to see the results.

Chris

[Alan D. Hyde]

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" as they are currently used in the U.S., are not helpful. They tend to polarize without conveying much in the way of accurate information.

A more useful description of the political spectrum places individualists (those who support individual liberty & choice, individual rights) at ONE end, and totalitarians (those who support centralized social or governmental command & control) at the OTHER end.

I would suspect that, despite our many sibling disagreements here, most of us who like to go on the water in wooden boats are individualists. But, being individualists, we come in many stripes... :D

Alan

[TomF]

Hmmm, I hadn't realized that Stan had used this title before ... ironic indeed. :D

... I'd expect that few will confuse the two of us.

t.

I once had a professor who argued that the left/right spectrum didn't make too much sense in the 20th century (her area of specialty). Said it was much more like a horseshoe.

Her point was that there's much more in common among totalitarianism of the right and totalitarianism of the left than there was with individualistic or democratic impulses.

[ 05-09-2005, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: TomF ]

[Ian McColgin]

I find myself charmed to be in agreement with Alan Hyde on this.

One way to look at it might be by thread introduction. I just scanned the most current page of the Bilge and find the following threads of political content. Not all were meant that way - just went there.

C Fast Food Tax (Boortz alert) km gresham

L Pope Purges Editor Ian McColgin

C Good news in Pakistan! Pages: 1 2 Donn

L UK election results Andrew Craig-Bennett

? S&P Junks GM, Ford MJC

L Put the cork back in the champagne -- Al Qaeda Leader? Not really ljb5

C Cleaner air - hotter planet Pages: 1 2 km gresham

L More Evidence of Global Warming Pages: 1 2 3 4 Bruce Hooke

L “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” Ian McColgin

C Did you ever see anything so funny? Or Censorship by another name. Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sam F

? Lynndie England's guilty plea rejected. Pages: 1 2 John Teetsel

Four "conservative" threads by three people.

Five "liberal" threads from four people.

I've not studied John Teetsel or MJC enough to determine if they fit a stereotype and some (Sam F) may dispute my catagorization.

Anyway, looks as though there is a small circle of initiators and a larger circle of commentators. I notice that the "conservatives" whether initiating something or commenting are a bit more loquacious on economic issues and on social issues tend more towards remarks like " arrogant blowhard... " Regretably, some of the liberal brethern also punctuate their remarks with pungent personal remarks.

All in all, looks about even to me.

[Keith Wilson]

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" as they are currently used in the U.S., are not helpful. They tend to polarize without conveying much in the way of accurate information.I completely agree.


A more useful description of the political spectrum places individualists (those who support individual liberty & choice, individual rights) at one end, and totalitarians (those who support centralized social or governmental command & control) at the other end.Well, that’s one axis along which to arrange things; one might call it the libertarian-statist or libertarian-totalitarian axis, although I suppose anarchists would actually be the extreme in one direction. It by no means corresponds with the standard liberal-conservative division. Both the right and the left are quite happy with certain kinds of restrictions on liberty, but not others. It’s one valid way to look at things, although not the most useful IMHO. Another would be the amount of social control desired on economic activity and the power of wealth, particularly corporations. This does not break down strictly on traditional left-right lines either.

Another useful distinction is the emphasis on justice (including perhaps compassion) versus the emphasis on liberty. Justice and liberty are to some extent competing values, although of course one can have neither - examples are all too common.

The problem is that one axis is completely insufficient to describe political positions even in grossly oversimplified terms. Multiple axes would be better; although it’s hard to visualize even three, much less more. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum" target="_blank"> There’s an interesting article along these lines in Wikipedia.
</a>

[ 05-09-2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[High C]

Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
...I notice that the "conservatives"...on social issues tend more towards remarks like " arrogant blowhard... "That wasn't about a social issue, it was about a personal issue. It was about your common propensity to dismiss things you fail to understand as "incorrect".

[Keith Wilson]

Oh, I think Ian understands perfectly well; he just doesn't agree.

[Norman Bernstein]

A more useful description of the political spectrum places individualists (those who support individual liberty & choice, individual rights) at ONE end, and totalitarians (those who support centralized social or governmental command & control) at the OTHER end.
Do you think you could come up with an even MORE biased definition of the terms, if you tried a bit harder, alan? smile.gif

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:

A more useful description of the political spectrum places individualists (those who support individual liberty & choice, individual rights) at ONE end, and totalitarians (those who support centralized social or governmental command & control) at the OTHER end.

Alan:rolleyes: Talk about cherry-picking one's definitions! Typical anal-cranial inversion! tongue.gif

BTW, how do you reconsile the removal of regional authority of land management people and it's concentration in DC under the current administration because the regional managers tried to make and apply policy that was land and resource friendly - and which happened to irk some wealthy Rip contributors - with your definition? tongue.gif

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ian McColgin:
...I notice that the "conservatives"...on social issues tend more towards remarks like " arrogant blowhard... "That wasn't about a social issue, it was about a personal issue. It was about your common propensity to dismiss things you fail to understand as "incorrect".</font>[/QUOTE]Now, it's OK to sleep with your head in the kettl drum, HiC, but you've got to get your wife to stop beating it to wake you in the morning! It just makes you cranky and slow! tongue.gif

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

Is there some sort of rule about Liberal V Conservative meta-threads.

There was the (in)famous "Schroedingers Cat.." then its (great-?)Grandchild "Did you ever see anything so funny? Or Censorship by another name", which has just dropped off the end of the first bilge index page.

Can there ever be more than one of these discussions active at the same time?

Can there ever be less than one of these discussions active?

We believe that the agruments go endlessly round in circles - but I have yet to see the equivalent of Keppler's laws.

Has anyone any empirical evidence?

[ 05-09-2005, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: P.I. Stazzer-Newt ]

[ljb5]

I'm for everything that conservatives say they are for: smaller, less intrusive government, government accountability, fiscal responsibility, individual liberties and civil rights.

I'm against everything that conservatives are actually for: corporate welfare, government secrecy, massive deficits, invasive government, expanded police powers and religious oversight of personal life.

On this forum, that qualifies me as an ultra-liberal. In the real world, it makes me moderate.

[ 05-09-2005, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[TomF]

Originally posted by P.I. Stazzer-Newt:
Is there some sort of rule about Liberal V Conservative meta-threads.

...snip...

We believe that the arguments go endlessly round in circles - but I have yet to see the equivalent of Keppler's laws.:D Actually, these circular arguments are as close as we've come to perpetual motion ... but the friction seems to eventually halt it, while generating considerable heat.

t.

[Norman Bernstein]

GREAT way of putting it, ljb5... count me as one of your compatriots... with an emphasis on the word 'patriot'! smile.gif

[Lurch]

What Norman just said.

[High C]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Oh, I think Ian understands perfectly well; he just doesn't agree.Then he should not have used the word "incorrect".

[George.]

Originally posted by TomF:
On another thread, the claim was made that the bilge is now dominated by liberals. That many of the conservative posters have walked away, and the remaining ones are outnumbered.In my opinion, very few of the contentious threads in our bilge are genuine liberal vs. conservative ideological threads.

Most of them are "pro-Bush" vs. "anti-Bush" threads. I notice that many people are pro-Bush no matter what he says and does, whether his actions and words are typically "liberal" or typically "conservative" in the usual sense of the terms.

I also notice that as much of what Bush has said and done appears to have come undone, from nukes in North Korea to Abu Ghraib, a lot of those who blindly defended his every position have slunk away into silence - not because of their opponents loquaciousness, but because of the indefensible positions they found themselves defending.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Sure, George, Bush has made plenty of mistakes.

That's the nature of war.

And, he's spent WAY more than I would have preferred to see domestically--- that's the nature of Washington...

Alan

[ 05-09-2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Interesting point, George. It seems that most of the folks on the opposite side of the hypothetical 'aisle' from me are not 'conservative', nor 'neo-conservative', but more simply 'Pro-Bush', admitting nor allowing no fault attributable to him. In a lot of cases (and I'm talking about people I argue with r/l, as oposed to here on WBF), the same people call themselves 'conservatives'... yet it seems that all the Pro-Bush people here are at least willing to say that Bush is not a 'conservative'.

For the same reason, perhaps, I prefer NOT to describe myself as a liberal... because I have a number of small-c conservative views, and even a few 'libertarian' ones... yet if I oppose some Bush initiative or policy, I'm branded a liberal, regardless.

[George.]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Well, that’s one axis along which to arrange things; one might call it the libertarian-statist or libertarian-totalitarian axis, although I suppose anarchists would actually be the extreme in one direction. Very true.

Another axis that could be used to arrange political opinions might be termed a skeptic-Manichean axis.

A skeptic would be someone who in principle doubts what politicians do and claim, unless it is backed up by hard evidence which can whitstand a logical test. The skeptic does not believe that any political act is simply "for the greater good," although sometimes political interest and the greater good do converge. There is the occasional exception, but it is, by definition, exceptional.

The Manichean believes that we live in a world of good and evil, and the leader we support must be good, since we are good ourselves (this does not apply to a leader we personally do not support). Therefore, the acts of our leaders are justified in terms of the struggle of good vs. evil. If they are of a "lesser of two evils" nature, as in war or capital punishment, even so they are justified in terms of ends, if not means. And ultimately, a political leader is either "good," in which case we should broadly trust him and not question his acts or motives in detail, or "evil," in which case we should resist him regardless of the merit of his individual initiatives.

And I dare say we all have a little of the skeptic and the Manichean in us, although some clearly tend more towards one than the other.

[Meerkat]

I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative.

I don't care if you want to stick your whilly in the chocolate factory. It's not my business! ;)

Just keep your cotton picking, drum banging mitts off my wallet! tongue.gif

[High C]

I'm not pro-Bush, I'm pro-Conservatism. Bush is the best we can do at the moment, so he gets my support. Despite his failings, most notably his domestic spending proclivities, he is FAR better than anything the Democrats have offered up in my lifetime. When someone better comes along, he or she will get my support. For now, he's the closest thing to a Conservative who has any opportunity to lead.

He's a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.

[George.]

Sorry to interject this sillyness into an unusually civil and balanced discussion, but I thought it was too funny, and pertinent in a puerile sort of way: smile.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2005/po050502.gif

[High C]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative.

Just keep your cotton picking, drum banging mitts off my wallet! tongue.gif What do you do for a living Meerkat? Whose wallet do you think that comes out of?

[Keith Wilson]

. . .(Bush) is FAR better than anything the Democrats have offered up in my lifetime. You write very well for a five-year old. :D

[PatCox]

Alan, your characterization is overly simplistic and it frames the dialectic in a way that makes one side right (freedom, individual, all positive words)and one side wrong (centralized govenment control, a direct allusion to the soviet union).

The fact is that there are libertarian liberals, and as our current president and congress are showing, there are big government, spying on your phone calls and regulating your sex lives republicans. (Bush has increased the government budget at a faster rate over the last 6 years than any president in over 50 years, and thats EXCLUDING the cost of defending us from al-queda by colonizing Iraq.)

There is a website out their that charts general political preferences along two axes, one the libertarian (individual rights) vs. totalitarian axis, one along the liberal vs. traditional conservative axis. Its here:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

There are fascist dictaters, and communist dictators, for example, which is a contrast that Alan's view would not admit of.

Take the test, the site does not do anything and it won't result in you getting spam or anything. I am wondering where it would rate some of you all.

[ 05-09-2005, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: PatCox ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> . . .(Bush) is FAR better than anything the Democrats have offered up in my lifetime. You write very well for a five-year old. :D </font>[/QUOTE]:D

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative.

Just keep your cotton picking, drum banging mitts off my wallet! tongue.gif What do you do for a living Meerkat? Whose wallet do you think that comes out of?</font>[/QUOTE]I'm a computer software and website developer. Paid lots of taxes for the dribble I get in disability.

Otherwise, Nunya! tongue.gif

[George.]

That Political Compass site is both interesting and neutral, unlike most of us! :D


If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process. http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/axeswithnames.gif

Here is my own result chart:

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/centre_cross.gif

I am glad I am in the same quadrant as Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, and in the opposite one as Bush and Berlusconi!

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/internationalchart.gif

Edited to add: oh, well, the bloody thing doesn't let you repost your personal chart. But anyway, I graphed one square to the left of center (same as Pope Rat) and halfway between center and extreme liberitarian (same as the Dalai Lama).

[ 05-09-2005, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: George. ]

[High C]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> . . .(Bush) is FAR better than anything the Democrats have offered up in my lifetime. You write very well for a five-year old. :D </font>[/QUOTE]I'll have you know that I'm going on 6! tongue.gif

[High C]

Originally posted by PatCox:
...Take the test...I am wondering where it would rate some of you all.2.88 spots to the right, and 1.33 down, a veritable centrist.

[Keith Wilson]

Two steps to the left and 1-1/2 down; pretty centrist as well.

[Meerkat]

"Libertarian left": 6 left, 5 down. Me, Gandhi, and the Dali Lama! ;)

[ 05-09-2005, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> . . .(Bush) is FAR better than anything the Democrats have offered up in my lifetime. You write very well for a five-year old. :D </font>[/QUOTE]I'll have you know that I'm going on 6! tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Ooooh... before you know it, you'll be discvoring there are more interesting things to beat than a drum! ;) :D :D :D

[High C]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
... before you know it, you'll be discvoring there are more interesting things to beat than a drum! ;) :D :D :D :confused: :confused: ;) :D

[Memphis Mike]

So the Neocons are leaving? I thought is was my imagination that the bilge was smelling a little better these days but I now know why.

I say don't let the hatch hit you in yer arses on the way out!

And take that limp wristed opera singer with yous. I hate opera! :mad: It reverberates like hell in here. It's offensive to the ear. :mad:

[ 05-09-2005, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: Memphis Mike ]

[High C]

http://www.fieldguide.com/Boys/Artsy/Images/operasing.gif

tongue.gif

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
http://www.fieldguide.com/Boys/Artsy/Images/operasing.gif

tongue.gif Only you would sing to your hand while holding a condom in the other! ROTFL!!!! :D :D :D

[High C]

Fearkitty, you manage to find the perverted side of everything! :rolleyes:

And that's my hankie... tongue.gif

[PatCox]

Well, since I dared everyone to take the test, I did. I am pretty out there to the left, much more so than I thought, and pretty far down there as a libertarian, which was no surprise.

I really don't think there were enough questions to get all the factors in on the left-right axis, they were the more obvious questions. The libertarian questions allowed more nuance, I think. But I am out in the same direction as the dalai lama, but further in both directions.

[John Bell]

I was surprised to find myself in the nearly the same spot as ACB's Liberal Democrats.