The discussion revolves around the definitions and implications of the terms "conservative" and "liberal," particularly in the context of political identity and behavior. Participants explore how these terms are perceived differently across various cultures and political landscapes, and how they relate to the actions and motivations of politicians.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal," and multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion. There is significant disagreement on the implications and accuracy of these terms.
Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions of political terms and their historical evolution, indicating that context and cultural background heavily influence their meanings. There are also unresolved questions about the motivations and behaviors of politicians associated with these labels.
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.