Conservatism vs. Liberalism

Basically this is the sum of every other thread here, all in on nice neat little place. :D

Seriously though, I want to lay out some fundamental concepts as I understand them, then ask for your analysis of them from your perspective. For now let us look at intent as opposed to execution, as it seems both philosophies are strong in intent, but most of the criticisms toward them are in regard to execution of that intent. That said, I see it as breaking down thusly (I'm numbering them not to give an order, but to denote which ideas tend to "butt heads" the most, such as conservatism's (1) tends to interfere with liberalism's (1), etc.):

Liberalism
(1) Fairness; equal treatmen for all peoples.
(2) The government should help those who cannot help themselves.
(3) A more centralized government can help those who cannot help themselves.
(4) Peace should be guarded at all costs.
(5) If an action does not interfere with another's life directly, then it should be allowed lest there be oppression.
(6) Our nation is a member of the world community.
(7) A socialized medical program will aid those who otherwise could not acquire needed medications.


Conservatism
(1) A moral value base should be maintained.
(2) The government should simply maintain order and justice.
(3) A decentralized government gives people the power and freedom to help themselves.
(4) Freedom should be guarded at all costs.
(5) If an action violates the moral values of the country, it should not be allowed lest there be moral degredation.
(6) Our nation is its own independent community.
(7) Capitalism, in that it allows people to help themselves, fosters freedom and self-empowerment in acquiring medication.

That's seven to start with, and I think these ground issues have been the common denominators behind every single debate we've yet had in this forum.

This is an off-the-top-of-my-head listing that may need some revision, so please feel free to correct me if I have written something in error.

It may help in comparing the two to reread the two lists, but this time read one (1), then the other (1), one (2), then the other (2), to really take a good look at how they line up beside each other.

Three thinking questions to kick things off:

(1) Is either political philosophy intrinsicly wrong?
(2) If not, why must they be at such odds with each other?
(3) Can they be reconciled together somehow?

In an effort to bring conservatism and liberalism together (or just allow them to be the opposite and still live together), I was reading this article:

let the states who dont want gay marriages to not have to perform them, but they must acknowledge them in the same way that they currently recognize marriages from other states, or even countries.

in return the blue states need allow the red majority up to two wars a year. as long as they come in under budget. yes there should be a war budget and those monies need to be collected before said war(s).

if they are then no one in america can be allowed to talk any s***, especially in the press.

meanwhile the red states need to allow the blue states to grow sell and use marijuana. not just medical weed, all weed. a man shouldn't have to be terminal to have a legal high. and if the red states dont want to join in, fine. but where do you think youre getting the tax revenues for your two wars a year - pot tax - so lightem if you got em.

in return abortion can be illegal in all cities with less than 500,000 people. if you look at the map, most of the people who vote blue live in big cities. they are also the ones who want a woman to have the right to choose. if someone from the suburbs or from a state with no big cities wants an abortion, she can get a ride or take the bus to the nearest city and get it handled there.

if a non-profit or philanthropist wants to donate a bus ticket to planned parenthood who will arrange for safe transport of the woman, then fine. but roe v wade needs to be protected. you get your wars, we get to have abortions if we need them.

also you get to keep bush jr in office. you say you like him, odds are in the next six months hes going to do more stupid things, the blue states should agree not to impeach his a** for one of the many f***ed up things hes responsible for.

in return there needs to be supreme court reform. this wackiness where a president could pack the court with four new judges that match his ideals is... well... partisan. and wasn't the whole purpose of the courts that they were impartial? well that doesn't seem to be working out so well, so let the dnc pick four and let the rnc pick four. let the people approve the nominees until there are four from each of the two parties.

and finally, voting should take place over a period of three days. there shouldn't be any need for paper ballots or long lines. theres a lot of unemployed people these days, for a few of them to have a week's work for something as important as an election is a good iea.

the fourth day will be National Ballot Counting Day. cuz seriously, whats the rush? i want a fair and accurate count. no need to do it in the middle of the night with the manmade pressure of network cameras all up in their grill, allow one full day to count the votes and on friday at twelve noon eastern time, the results will be read aloud and people can accept or concede. and you should be forced to show ID when you vote. i wasnt asked for my ID and neither were a lot of people i know. thats silly.

(article https://www.tonypierce.com/blog/2004/11/this-is-what-america-looked-like-right.htm )

The excerpt makes some good points, but the message sure seems mixed. Most of the content embodies exactly the problem I'm trying to look at with threads like this. Much of the content is:

"I hate Bush."
"I hate Jesusland."
"Conservatives are idiots."
"F*** the White House."

And yadda yadda yadda...

I see TONS of this out of the liberal left. HATE, HATE, HATE....They hate Bush, they hate the Christian right, and they've got plenty more hate to give around. Disagree? Oppose? No. HATE.

And let's be fair. There's some of it on the conservative side too. To hear some talking heads, all liberals are morally deprived evil villains. Is this disagreeing? No. It seems a little too close to HATE as well.

And after spilling out all the hate material, the article moves on to talk about putting aside differences (and actually makes a good point here and there) and talks about how we should stand united despite them.

Well I would like to ask the writer: Will you make up your mind?

Bush-bashing, Kerry-bashing -- whatever. This has turned into nonsense, hatred is trendy, and THAT'S what's dividing this nation.

And that's what I'm trying to take a hard look at with topics such as this. How do we put an end to all this hatred?

How about another constraint.

Lets assume that the extreme right is a bad as the exreme left.

Its obvious even in your reply Panetti that you lean to the right.
SOME?

i can feel that I am not extreme left, but that makes me realize that when we talk about extreme right or extreme left, we are isolating the respective side and then placing ourselves within that division

IE I am liberal, therefore I am to the left of What? the center?
or am i to the left of liberals?
I feel that i am more towards the center than many, barring of course any consideration of my removal from the mainstream religion.

Well, that's what you're here in this thread for. Balance!

A purely political thread. Whoa and I'm dizzy already.
Lets see. Scumbags on the right (i'm listing some on the right in an effort to be bi-partisan) hmmmmmm. My favorite scuzz-bucket would be Newt Gingritch or howeverthehellits s u p o s e d to be spelled. He's bangin some ho from ZZZ and hands his wife, who at the time is in the hospital w/some terminal illness, divorce papers........... O_o Damn that's cold.

Scuzzy lefties hmmmmmmm......... Ted Kennedy. The man (and I name this one because it's probably the one of the only one's we know about) gets drunk, is with a woman of some ill repute and drives his car into some body of water where woman either Dies instantly or Drowns........Either way she dies, and Fails to report it for X hours.

OK so my info and history are off. I hope that EVERYONE will acknowledge that this was an attempt to display some sort of recognition that neither party is perfect. In fact if GWB were Democrat I would have voted for him. Party matters little to me.......I vote for the person.

I think I'm a little older than most of you, so I've had to look at more changes than a lot of you have. In the sixties everyone was screaming for change, but what change do we have now? It seems that the politics in the US is a lot like Poe's the Pit and the Pendulum--it races from one extreme to another. In all history there have been forms of bias, whether it was religion, race, sex, money or whatever. Unfortunately it seems that the US is the ugly fruit born of a rotten seed. I said to some relatives recently that in twenty years they will be 40+ like I am now. You can't sit on your buns and expect change to happen by osmosis, people have to work to have the changes happen. The biggest difference between the 60's and now is that people were actually willing to stand up in one way or another and make their opinions be heard. Now they only want to sit on their cans and watch HBO!

Well, I consider myself one of those who does try to do something about it rather than sit and watch TV. I just attempted to help a local man run for office out here in hopes of cleaning up my REALLY messed up town, for starters.

Ok, now guys, I want to make this as a complete aside. Seeing as we have a zillion threads going, I thought this too miniscule to start another, but if I may make a small point:

The quote:


The quoted:


I often believe that identifying someone's opponents will help you rate the quality of the person. That said, let me just say I'm glad he's on YOUR side!

Of course, I've heard rumor that Marilyn Manson supported Bush, but at least we keep him shut up.

Yeah but that's because he's not as successful as Steve Tyler. Tyler is a Bush supporter and he's every bit as bad as (well o.k. he's done some raunchy stuff but he's not AS bad) as Marilyn Manson. Eminem is a skinny punk kid who has No "bones". I've got more respect for whoever killed Tupac, than for some skinny blond dips@#t (no offense to blonds out there) who claims to be crazy. Courtny Love really is crazy and seriously drugged up, or has been I heard she was staying clean recently. Ok, heres a question for you: In a celebrity deathmatch between Love and Mathers, who would win. If everyone wants me to open another thread in RT then I will.