What is a "real" conservative or "real" liberal?

All my statements concerning Hitler and his master race/equality/Jewish Holocaust et cetera apply exactly the same way to dictators we unequivocably accept as Leftists.
Click to expand...
We're gonna simply have to agree to disagree. There have been plenty of dictators that identified with both sides. Hitler was a free-market authoritarian and Stalin was just plain authoritarian.
That's why they appear where they do on the chart.

I don't think that the true American right actually exists except scattered out in a couple of compounds hidden in the Idaho wilderness.
Click to expand...
So you insist that there's a left and a middle....but no such thing as a right?
Ooookay....

Let's try a different approach: How do you define "middle"?
 
So you insist that there's a left and a middle....but no such thing as a right?
Ooookay....

Let's try a different approach: How do you define "middle"?
Click to expand...

I would also like to see the definition of the middle. Opinions either have to be left or right. Now when congressmen from the left and right get together they usually pass bills that are somewhere in the middle as a compromise. That too me is the middle but none of the people who passed these laws actually agree with it, it is simply a better alternative to them than what the other side is proposing. An opinion can't be in the middle though. Every person ultimately decides on one side or another when forming an opinion. A person can't be for and against illegal immigration at the same time for example. A person can't be for and against a war for another example. Ultimately a person's opinion will lead them to one side or another. Just how exactly does a person have an opinion that is in the middle? Now I do think that there are degrees of just how left or right a person is. I just don't think a person can ever be in the middle entirely.
 
How do you define "middle"?
Click to expand...
Who me? :) I define the middle as the majority of people who get up and go to work every day. If you disallow the ones who live on welfare, the union organizers, the ones who fly to their summer house in Cannes and what O'Reilly calls the 'bomb throwers' and 'Kool Aid drinkers' then that is the middle. The middle, whether or not they agree on schismatic issues, are the ones who are the ones who pay for government and are hurt when it breaks.

What might help is to get back with me after reading Crane Brinton's "The Anatomy of Revolution" so we can communicate about the historical process of nations' progressive movement toward revolutions led by people who call themselves Right or Left impeded by conservative counter revolutionaries...who are in the middle. I.e. conservatives are to the left of right wing nuts and to the right of left wing nuts.

That's why they appear where they do on the chart.
Click to expand...
They are together on the spectum of revolution versus conservativsm. They use different words but they do the same thing.

Opinions either have to be left or right.
Click to expand...
Not really. How about authoritarianism versus libertarianism?
 
I define the middle as the majority of people who get up and go to work every day. If you disallow...
Click to expand...
So basically the middle is whoever you say it is. I figured as much.
That makes your spectrum an exercise in self-delusion; a false construct.
Kinda like using a blank ruler where an inch is whatever you judge it to be. Might make you feel good about yourself when you keep it on the nightstand, but no practical value as a measuring tool.
They are together on the spectum of revolution versus conservativsm. They use different words but they do the same thing.
Click to expand...
They are together on the spectrum of state authority vs. individual freedom and it shows on the chart. What you don't like is the fact that this isn't a feature unique to radical liberalism.

Not really. How about authoritarianism versus libertarianism?
Click to expand...

That's my point! :cool: Authoritarianism is neither left nor right. We can all have our own opinions about a subject without necessarily getting the government to enforce them.
 
So basically the middle is whoever you say it is.
Click to expand...
Nope, the middle is the ones who pay for government rather than taking from it. That particular ruler has numbers on it for those who care to look. I'm still recommending "The Anatomy of Revolution" for light summer reading.

That's my point! Authoritarianism is neither left nor right.
Click to expand...
And one of my points is that left and right are both authoritarian constructs whose words mean only that the people spouting them would like to take control.
 
tell your leftwing politicians about that ruler pholosophy the next time they hike our taxes.
Click to expand...
I certainly will just as soon as you explain it to your right-wing politicians who are all busy urinating on the Constitution.

Hey, don't fuss at me about the liberals. According to 'Meek' here I'm a conservative, remember? I fit exactly within the definition he's laid out here. Matter of fact, I may be the most 'conservative' member on this board.

The problem is that he's selectively disallowing whoever the heck he wants to in order to make his nonsense definition fly. Welfare recipients are still Americans and they still vote. Union organizers are still Americans and they still vote. Same for the richies, the bomb throwers, and the 'kool-aid drinkers'.
What's worse, they outnumber us! Maybe we should be disallowing folks like us when defining the middle? Why not? One arbitrary construct is just as good as any other...

The 'middle' is *not* a construct. It is the mean consensus of opinion. It is real, defined, and measurable. You can define it as the average person, American, voter, or politician as you wish, but you cannot randomly make stuff up and expect me to not call you on it.

This false construct (liberals are far left, conservatives are the middle, there's no such thing as the right) implies that:
#1) both parties are too far to the left
#2) the Republicans are less far to the left
therefore
#3) the Republicans are the lesser of two evils.

I have watched, horrified, as the "lesser evil" has been ransacking our country for the last 6 years. As bad as the liberals were, they weren't this bad.
You want to compare somebody to Hitler? Hitler would create a Department of Homeland Security. Hitler would spy on his own citizens without a warrant. Hitler would imprison his own citizens without due process. Hitler would start wars over false reasons. Hitler would oppress his own people for different religious beliefs. Hitler would accuse dissenters of being enemy sympathizers.
Hitler would torture prisoners. Hitler would disregard world opinion and destroy his alliances in favor of a 'coalition of the willing'. Hitler would disseminate propaganda in his own media. Hitler would balloon the Federal government until it had final authority over every aspect of our lives.

So let's stop Godwining this thread and get back to the subject at hand.
 
How has this thread remained open?
Click to expand...
If you don't care for it... leave it!

I'm learning despite the "attitudes" and that includes yours...

Don't close this thread... it is a good subject despite the occasional ignorant post.

You want to compare somebody to Hitler? Hitler would create a Department of Homeland Security. Hitler would spy on his own citizens without a warrant. Hitler would imprison his own citizens without due process. Hitler would start wars over false reasons. Hitler would oppress his own people for different religious beliefs. Hitler would accuse dissenters of being enemy sympathizers.
Hitler would torture prisoners. Hitler would disregard world opinion and destroy his alliances in favor of a 'coalition of the willing'. Hitler would disseminate propaganda in his own media. Hitler would balloon the Federal government until it had final authority over every aspect of our lives.
Click to expand...
All of this makes very good sense, and as far as I can see, it is accurate.
However, the insinuation that Bush is a good comparison, is inflated to say the very least. :cool:

Because a few guards get out of hand and "abuse" some prisoners, does not mean they "tortured" them. (What those same prisoners did to the Shiites, like beating their feet with clubs, drowniing them over and over within inches of their lives, burying them alive or sadistically raping them with pain inducing "tools"... that was torture.) :mad:

Because a little boy pulls the wings from a fly, he is not necessarily going to be a Nazi when he grows up... :p
 
Comparing Nazi Germany to America is stupid...Only the truly stupid believe this...Only those ignorant of what Nazi was would make such an assertion.

The rules have been long established...once a thread goes down the Nazi road it is over.
 
Pointer & Pipo,
I'm in full agreement. I didn't bring up the 'Hitler' thing, I'm finishing it.
So if we're all agreed that ol' Adolf has no bearing on modern American politics, I move that we carry on with the topic.
 
When defining the generic left and the right, both Stalin and Hitler make for good comparisons, as Communism is a form of socialism and is one of the defining criteria of the modern far-left. Fascism, on the other hand, is a defining trend of the modern far-right, which in this country has been called neo-conservatism.

As long as the posts stick to the topic of the thread, which is a question on the definitions of conservative and liberal, and by inference, the left and the right wings of political thought, then mentioning Hitler or Nazism in general, do not violate Goodwin's Law.

Where it would go south, is if the comparisons of Bush=Hitler and/or Conservatives=Nazis were to prevail (I don't believe those comparisons have been actually made in this thread, as yet. Alluded to, but not actually made). Just as we are actually some distance from Communism, we are also some distance from Fascism.

The facts are, that there are components of both political ideals floating around in American politics today. Discussion of such, allows us to recognize those components within our society as a whole. Like the people that form America, we are a hodge-podge of differing ideals.

Wikipedia said:
Godwin has stated that Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact.
Click to expand...

So far, there is no need to invoke Godwin's Law.
 
Hey, don't fuss at me about the liberals. According to 'Meek' here I'm a conservative, remember? I fit exactly within the definition he's laid out here. Matter of fact, I may be the most 'conservative' member on this board.
Click to expand...
Surprise, surprise! Conservativism is not so much an ideology but a lifestyle of personal responsibility and non-invasiveness. The heterosexual Baptist who goes to work every day in the mill and votes straight Republican has more in common with the gay Buddhist who gets up and goes to work every day in the mill and votes straight Democratic than either one has with the power brokers.

CONSERVATIVE IS NOT A DIRTY WORD!!!

Now, go to your public library and ask for a copy of Crane Brinton's "The Anatomy of Revolution".
 
Unless one defines "Left" as "any idea I disagree with", and "Right" as "any idea I agree with", there have clearly been dictators from both ends. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet.. Right. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro... Left.

Rightist agendas can be as easily advanced by coercive government power as Leftist agendas, and both have been so advanced, repeatedly. That's why the single-line, Left --> Moderate --> Right model so clearly doesn't work. Now, there are clearly many Conservatives (Rightists, for the purposes of this discussion) who have a real problem with being associated with Fascism. Just as there are many Leftists who don't want to be associated with Communism, and for the same reasons. It's uncomfortable to be faced with the extremes, especially when they're on our end of things. But, the correct (it seems to me) way to look at this is "extremes are bad," rather than "if it's extreme, it must belong over there on that side that I don't like."

There have been authoritarians from the Right, and Hitler was one of them. Just as there have been (small "l") libertarians from the Left. Modern Europe could be seen that way, as their socialism (technically, Social Democracy) has "derived from the just consent of the governed." Whatever you think of their policies, they are free societies, and those policies could and would be changed if the citizens wanted them to. Because they haven't, I conclude that their governments reflect the will and values of their people. It's tough to criticize that, even if you wouldn't choose to live there. And, given the history, a socialist and pacifist Europe is probably no bad thing. Clearly in the German case, it's preferable to what we've seen before.

--Shannon
 
A REAL problem:barf: I see it as a big problem when people go to one extreme or the other with politics, religion, anything.
For example, I don't like an extremist "Christian" any more than an extremist "Muslim". Humans are falable. Just because you really believe something doesn't automaticaly make everyone else wrong. I was raised a Baptist, but people like Pat Robertson make me sick.
I was also raised to be objective, to keep an open mind and to remember that there are a lot of people that are not like me and are affected differently by certain issues and that their beliefs matter to them. I support liberal issues and conservative issues. The ones that make sense. Ones that don't take away liberties but "provide for the common good". I don't support proffesional polititions who bandwagon their way into office because they can speak the party line. Basically what I'm saying is wether I vote for a republican or democrat, I'm shooting myself in the foot.

Support NRA. Support NORML. Why? Because neither are the governments bussines. To me, it's a matter of principle. I could go on and on and on...

...out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom, out of my gun safe, out of my garden...just stay the heck out!
 
+1 for each post above.

Our country is already uncomfortably close to being a one-party system. These people have repeatedly demonstrated that their alleigances lie with themselves and their party, *not* us.
If either party is left in a dominant position we end up with an overreaching self-serving government. As has been demonstrated during the last 6 years, even the beloved Republicans aren't immune to this.

Our best defense against tyranny is to maintain these two parties at each other's throats so they won't be at ours.

Your insistence that all dictatorship is from the left undermines the mechanism that protects us from dictatorship. Kinda like the crossing the street; you may believe that all the traffic that's liable to flatten you is only coming from the left, if only because your stiff neck makes looking to the right very uncomfortable :D
I assure you, the traffic goes both ways.
 
The terms Left and Right to refer to political affiliation originated early in the French Revolutionary era, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, and the church, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same.
Click to expand...

These are the definitions I use when I describe myself as leaning left. My sympathies are with the "commoners", not with the church or aristocracy, which can take care of itself.

I, as a commoner, do not want the church nor the aristocracy telling me what to do unless it directly affects them. I do not accept twisted roadways leading to how I affect them as valid. Examples of twisted roadways are restricting alcohol or drug consumption because it offends them, restricting possession of weapons for my protection because they fear I might injure them. I do accept straghtforward protections as long as I get them as well. Examples of straightforward protections are laws against murder, kidnapping, assault, battery, the usual stuff most everybody considers a crime.

I, as a commoner, expect to be responsible for my own keep. At the same time I, as a commoner, and earning as a commoner, understand that there are going to be some commoners who can't earn their keep and that I am going to be taxed to help them. I expect that if I can have my commoner wage taxed to this end, the aristocracy should pony up as well.

I think that the US Constitution makes an attempt to see that these things happen.

In that respect, I'd be interested in hearing any argument that the Constitution is NOT a document that restricts liberty - that of the church and state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top