- #1
Zero
How do you define it?
More easily then "Liberal" I suspect.Originally posted by Zero
How do you define it?
Originally posted by Zero
Well, I wonder...being 'conservative' would mean ...no deficit spending, for instance?
Are any of those actually accurate, though?Originally posted by Bystander
"Conservative?" "Liberal?" Really, a single thread --- in the U.S. both terms are used as perjoratives, both identify politically extreme positions, both conceal hidden agendas behind an "I'm only considering your best interests" smokescreen, both are invariably used to polarize discussions, and both terms are adopted by users who alter "definitions" to flatter themselves.
Liberal: a diehard dem. Conservative: a diehard repub.
Originally posted by Zero
Are any of those actually accurate, though?
That's a cute, old-timey quote. A conservative position is supposed to be centrist and wise, supportive of a free-market enterprising economy that's busy industrializeing and expanding. The word 'conservative' implies preserving resources for future use in a time of need. Environmentalists, factory workers, a good fraction of women and the poor are conservative. (not to mention anybody low on gas in the middle of Canada)Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
That's a cute, old-timey quote. A conservative position is supposed to be centrist and wise, supportive of a free-market enterprising economy that's busy industrializeing and expanding. The word 'conservative' implies preserving resources for future use in a time of need. Environmentalists, factory workers, a good fraction of women and the poor are conservative. (not to mention anybody low on gas in the middle of Canada)
All of the McLaughlin group are conservative, except Tony. Some of the people who say they are conservative are liars. Why is that? (or is it so?)
Originally posted by Zero
Well, it is the same way that communism is often associated with 'liberalism', when in practice it is very 'conservative'.
Certainly, the people in America who describe themselves as 'most conservative' strike me as being radicals...and can someone be a conservative radical, or shouldn't that be an oxymoron?
Originally posted by Bystander
(SNIP) You are trying to hit wildly moving targets trying to define today's politically "hot" words --- politicians are, as a group, psychopaths, megalomaniacs, and really very averse to being characterized by any sort of solid definition that they might be held to at a later date --- liberal and conservative are two different names for identical styles of "white hats" to be worn by frauds, thieves, cheats, phonies, crooks, shysters, child molesters, mopes, dopes, and other scum while they're working their scams.
Operationally, the two words are indistinguishable --- the result of any activity by either is the same, money is missing from my pocket, the roads are in worse shape, crime stats are up, jail times are down, and high school grads vocabularies continue to shrink. (SNoP)
politicians are, as a group, psychopaths, megalomaniacs, and really very averse to being characterized by any sort of solid definition that they might be held to at a later date
...
Operationally, the two words are indistinguishable --- the result of any activity by either is the same, money is missing from my pocket, the roads are in worse shape, crime stats are up, jail times are down, and high school grads vocabularies continue to shrink.
Originally posted by Bystander
OK, Zero's going to have to specify whether he's interested in "liberal vs. conservative" politics, or "l vs. c" philosophies; methinks we're looking at two entirely different animals if we apply the words as modifiers to "politics" and "philosophy."
Originally posted by Bystander
OK, this is PF, right? "Physics Forums." Is physics philosophically liberal, or conservative? The field depends upon a handful of established principles, and rigorous protocols for applications of those principles to elucidating information about the universe, solving problems, and testing hypotheses in efforts to expand the set of established principles and protocols --- strikes me as "conservative," and results oriented.
Let's compare this to threads that wind up in TD or M&PS --- Graham Hanquack kind of stuff --- "nothing is certain," therefore anything is as good an approach or explanation of natural phenomena as the dull, mundane, boring, stodgy, conservative establishment scientists can come up with. Overstated a bit?
In this context, science vs. nonsense, "conservative" means systematic, consistent, and effective, and the alternative approach is a lot of willy-nilly flailing around --- shall we call it a "liberal" philosophical approach to science?
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
The word 'conservative' implies preserving resources for future use in a time of need. Environmentalists, factory workers, a good fraction of women and the poor are conservative. (not to mention anybody low on gas in the middle of Canada)
That's a good point too...but people often take 'conservative' to also mean 'fiscal conservative'...and you would think resorses would fall under that too.Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I always took the term "conservative" to mean "conserving traditional ways" (and in some cases taking uo back to former inequities and injustices), whereas "conservationist" means "one who values the conservation of natural resources".
Originally posted by Zero
Actually, I think you bring up a good point. Conservatism can be a great thing...but it never progresses./"Never?" The second law is NOT the child of the first law?Liberalism produces great new ideas,/Andy Warhol's soup can? vs. Rembrandt? Can you give us a f'rinstance or two?but can slip into undisciplined nonsense. Wouldn't that show that we need a bit of both, instead of one side trying to eradicate the other?
This is where we move from the philosophical arena to the political arena --- again, the first object of any political activity is the acquisition/expansion of power, and the second is the retention of that power --- there is no such thing as a "liberal politician" --- he/she/it is entirely too busy dealing with the first and second objectives of politicking. Same goes for political movements --- power first, retaining power second, and there ain't no third.
Well, I always thought of that as happening in the "2nd" or "3rd" generation of a movement...the best of intentions to start with, the taste of real power, and then the inevitable corruption. That's probably why I am so much in favor of term limits, and in not allowing people to hold too many different positions of power. Professional politics is a corrupting influence on even the most idealistic person.Originally posted by Bystander
This is where we move from the philosophical arena to the political arena --- again, the first object of any political activity is the acquisition/expansion of power, and the second is the retention of that power --- there is no such thing as a "liberal politician" --- he/she/it is entirely too busy dealing with the first and second objectives of politicking. Same goes for political movements --- power first, retaining power second, and there ain't no third.
It is probably a combination...a compromise here, a turning your head from the truth there...it all adds up.Originally posted by Bystander
Which assumption do you make? That the power of public office corrupts the office holder, or, that the office holder corrupts the power of the public office?
I maintain the latter --- history presents very few examples of clean politicians --- they are remarkable for the fact that they remained clean while in office, or quit office when pressures to corrupt the power of the office became too great for them to tolerate. There aren't any examples I've run into of cases in which an office was so dirty and corrupting that it turned Mother T. into Ma Barker.
The power of public office can greatly influence a politician's decision-making process. As a politician gains more power, they may feel pressure to make decisions that align with their party's beliefs or please their constituents in order to maintain their position. This can lead to biased or self-serving decisions, rather than decisions based on what is best for the public.
When a politician abuses their power, it can have serious consequences for both the individual and the public. This can include loss of trust and credibility, damage to their reputation, and potential legal consequences. It can also lead to negative impacts on policies and decisions that affect the public, as they may be made for personal gain rather than the greater good.
The power of public office can have a significant impact on a politician's personal life. They may be under constant scrutiny and criticism, which can lead to stress and strain on their relationships. Additionally, the demands of their position may require long hours and time away from family and friends, leading to a work-life imbalance.
Unfortunately, the power of public office can sometimes lead to corruption. When a politician has a significant amount of power and control over resources and decision-making, they may be tempted to use it for personal gain. This can include accepting bribes, misusing public funds, or making decisions that benefit themselves or their associates.
One way to ensure that politicians use their power responsibly is through transparency and accountability. This can include measures such as regular audits, conflict of interest disclosures, and public reporting of decisions and actions. Additionally, having a system of checks and balances in place can help prevent abuse of power and hold politicians accountable for their actions.