Defining Terms: The Meaning of Liberal and Conservative

[Phi for All]

Thinking about the 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 attack, it occurred to me that the two wars, thousands of lives lost and hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent in the interim was the result of the "conservative" response. I remember thinking, right after the attack, that an aggressive military response was the wrong thing to do, especially because Al Qaeda was being called an "Islamic" terrorist organization. Not Afghani, not Pakistani, not even Arabic, but Islamic as if the whole religion were responsible. You don't respond to religious fervor with armed force or you just create more religious fervor.

 

I also remember thinking that we were missing out on a unique opportunity to accept the sympathy and the helping hands that so many countries were offering to the US. Now was the time for diplomacy, to use the goodwill generated by the attack to unite against terrorism the smart way, to negotiate with countries where they trained, to cut off the funding they were receiving. After all, at the time of the attack, there were only a few hundred members of Al Qaeda [1], and they needed about US$30M/year to operate [2]. There were others who felt this way, but it was dismissed as the "liberal" response.

 

I realize it would be 20/20 hindsight to claim which would've been been better, but it lead me to think about why the "conservative" response was so costly. Does "conservative" only mean prudent until we're attacked? Does "liberal" mean profligate spending except where the military and terrorists are concerned? Everyone I've asked in my circle has a different meaning for conservative and liberal, and that holds true even between those who consider themselves on the same side.

 

I realize that one can be conservative on some issues and liberal on others. But are there different meanings for the words depending on what you're talking about? I think it makes us easy to manipulate when buzz words like this have special meanings depending on who hears them. A single sentence can be used and everyone who hears it gets a different message.

 

Let's try to firm up some definitions. What do "liberal" and "conservative" mean to you?

[imatfaal]

Phi - this is a debate that will vary massively from country to country, and even depend on capitalisation. In the UK Liberal and Conservative are political parties (the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative and Unionist Party) whereas liberal tends to mean not bound by tradition, progressive, and tolerant, and conservative (often even called small c conservative) means tending to traditional behaviour, restrained and reactionary. In economics this is doubly weird as many Conservatives are liberal economists (free market/ neoclassical /laissezfaire) and many Liberals tend to have conservative economic policy (structured, guided and managed).

[Phi for All]

Phi - this is a debate that will vary massively from country to country, and even depend on capitalisation. In the UK Liberal and Conservative are political parties (the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative and Unionist Party) whereas liberal tends to mean not bound by tradition, progressive, and tolerant, and conservative (often even called small c conservative) means tending to traditional behaviour, restrained and reactionary. In economics this is doubly weird as many Conservatives are liberal economists (free market/ neoclassical /laissezfaire) and many Liberals tend to have conservative economic policy (structured, guided and managed).

The political definitions are ones I've held myself. They make sense. That's part of what I didn't understand about our "conservative" response to 9/11. It was anything but restrained. And the "liberal" response to the financial crisis was bailouts, which have traditionally been mistakes. The government can't inject money into the economy that it hasn't first taken out of the economy. And giving it back to the people who lost it in the first place hardly seems progressive and not bound by tradition. Yet the first bailout bill had 2/3 of the House Democrats voting for it [1].

 

The economic definitions seem a little strange to me. Our conservatives tend toward laissez-faire positions on both commerce and regulations, which seems fiscally oxymoronic. Isn't it less costly to keep your factories from polluting in the first place than it is to clean up after they do? The only way this position seems to make sense is if conservatives want to conduct their businesses without intervention of any kind, and then create another business that gets government contracts to clean up afterward.

[imatfaal]

The traditional reactionary response to attack is retaliation - and in this case it was retaliation without even a firm idea of who the target of the response should be. If you are willing to take another step towards a critical reading of the response, then one might argue that reactionary forces within government require overseas military engagements and their consequential benefits to the military industrial complex. On the bailout side - we are caught between a rock and a hard place; we have allowed large commercial enterprises to privatize all profits during the boom years (they cry out for free and unregulated markets) yet they socialise the losses when the market turns or the gamble fails to pays off (they claim to be an integral part of society). We either need to take them at their word and let the devil take the hindmost - or we need to nationalise a better percentage of profits during the good times.

 

The economic argument - which seems sound but which I do not believe works out in the wild - is that any form of regulation is best done by the invisible hand of the market. The same or better results will be achieved by automatic/market regulation as through external/governmental regulation - there will be much lower inherent costs of the regulator, and less chance of clumsy regulations causing more harm than good. Pollution is a fine case in point - "the polluter pays" should work well, financially astute corporations will understand that prevention is better and cheaper than cure and find methods that allow them to out-produce competitors by being greener; of course what happens is that they realise that a bunch of lawyers is cheaper than that, so they pollute like crazy, deny any responsibility, and procrastinate till the problem is shifted or they have removed the profit offshore and they can go bankrupt and leave clean up costs to government. what's mind-bending is that the preceding lines also pretty much sum up what happened with collateralised debt obligations

[Iggy]

I realize it would be 20/20 hindsight to claim which would've been been better, but it lead me to think about why the "conservative" response was so costly. Does "conservative" only mean prudent until we're attacked? Does "liberal" mean profligate spending except where the military and terrorists are concerned? Everyone I've asked in my circle has a different meaning for conservative and liberal, and that holds true even between those who consider themselves on the same side.

 

Broadcast news tends to frame issues with so little context and in such a reactionary way that conservatism and liberalism seem to me like they can almost change core principles overnight.

 

I don't believe military intervention is necessarily a conservative idea, nor turning the other cheek necessarily a liberal one. I think americans tend to forget that the neo-conservative movement grew out of the democratic party -- that people like Wolfowitz came from the democratic party. Before the creation of the Bush doctrine, nation building was often labeled a liberal cause.

 

I have respect for liberals who support the war in Iraq for liberal reasons and conservatives who oppose it for conservative reasons, and it seems like there is a lot more of that in the print media -- like conservative columnist William Buckley and liberal columnist Christopher Hitchens. Too bad the print media, like the examples I chose, are dead and dying

 

With Fox news and MSNBC replacing them, liberalism and conservatism get redefined with each new policy initiative and wedge issue forged for the next election.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Iggy

[Incendia]

Liberal in anything means fewer restrictions. A liberal society restricts it's people less than a conservative society. A conservative society tries to preserve the traditions and culture of that society, and is likely to have more restrictions in order to preserve that culture and it's traditions. (Conservatives favour integration over multiculturalism.)

Liberalism is often seen as progressive. (Decriminalising drugs, for example.)

A liberal economy is one which has fewer restrictions on the economy.

I'm not entirely sure about conservative economies, though I'm pretty sure they support protectionism...at-least it seems consistent for them to support protectionism.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Incendia

[Realitycheck]

Liberalism equals big government, more taxes, more control. Conservatism equals smaller government, less taxes, less control.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Realitycheck

[Incendia]

Liberalism equals big government, more taxes, more control. Conservatism equals smaller government, less taxes, less control.

 

Incorrect. You do not understand liberalism. Please at least read the wikipedia article about it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[the asinine cretin]

Being a bit impressionistic about it, liberalism & conservatism, as labels, call to mind pigeonholing and regimented thinking.

[Phi for All]

I have respect for liberals who support the war in Iraq for liberal reasons and conservatives who oppose it for conservative reasons, and it seems like there is a lot more of that in the print media -- like conservative columnist William Buckley and liberal columnist Christopher Hitchens. Too bad the print media, like the examples I chose, are dead and dying

I don't know any conservatives who can tell me conservatively why the war in Iraq was a good idea. I do have a liberal friend who says it was a good liberal decision because we couldn't have made as much progress in that region with Hussein still in power. It has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with religion-sponsored state governments, in his opinion.

 

Liberal in anything means fewer restrictions. A liberal society restricts it's people less than a conservative society. A conservative society tries to preserve the traditions and culture of that society, and is likely to have more restrictions in order to preserve that culture and it's traditions. (Conservatives favour integration over multiculturalism.)

It doesn't seem that way in the US. Conservatives are the ones who chafe at restrictions and regulations that make it more costly to do business.

 

Liberalism equals big government, more taxes, more control. Conservatism equals smaller government, less taxes, less control.

But Bush ran as a moderate conservative and then spent the next eight years building the biggest government EVER. The Patriot Act, TSA, No Child Left Behind, these are programs and laws that are the most invasive and restrictive things ever perpetrated on the American people. And I will guarantee you, that the majority of the Republican candidates would do nothing to repeal any of those programs (Ron Paul is the only one who didn't vote for the Patriot Act).

[Realitycheck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Liberalism

 

back at you

[Phi for All]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Liberalism

 

back at you

Since you gave me no indication of what point you meant to make with your link, I'll assume the "back at you" comment was somehow in retaliation for some comment I made about President Bush. I don't want this thread to be another bashfest; I used him as an example because his administration seemed to please conservatives (at least at first), and his expansion of the powers of the federal government is not in question by Republican front-runners even now.

 

Michele Bachmann's clinic took federal funds from Medicare, Rick Perry's farms took agricultural subsidies, Romney supports ethanol subsidies to both farmers and oil companies, and in the 90s Newt Gingrich had the 3rd most federally subsidized district in the nation (behind Arlington Virginia where the National Cemetery is, and Brevard County Florida where the Kennedy Space Center is). It seems like small federal government is only a conservative idea when referring to liberals.

 

And what about the "control" part? Is it more controlling to discriminate against homosexuals and refuse to allow them rights other people have, or is it more controlling to insist that they be treated equally?

 

I'm still not sure if the tax thing is a liberal/conservative issue. Taxing the poor pulls money directly out of the economy, because they tend to spend everything they make. The wealthy don't buy the same kinds of things the majority do, and they buy less of them. I think the disparity there is what taxes are spent on. I can see why wealthy people wouldn't like paying for public swimming pools because they will never use them. The same with other federal programs that target low-income sectors. Business owners want the money spent where it will do their businesses the most good.

[Iggy]

I don't know any conservatives who can tell me conservatively why the war in Iraq was a good idea. I do have a liberal friend who says it was a good liberal decision because we couldn't have made as much progress in that region with Hussein still in power. It has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with religion-sponsored state governments, in his opinion.

I see where you're coming from.

 

I think making "progress in that region" could be considered a 'conservative decision' to go to war... or perhaps better put... that could be considered a reason why the war was a good idea by conservatives.

 

Conservatives might be more interested in getting rid of totalitarian regimes and replacing them with liberal democracies for the free-market economy that is created rather than the humanitarian liberation of the people... I don't know. But, either way, I think military interventionism is too broad a thing to be either mainly liberal or conservative in principle.

[Realitycheck]

Calm down. While I'm not disputing the definition of Liberalism, per se, Classical Liberalism is all but extinct and bears hardly any resemblance to the Liberalism mainly practiced today, that of Social Liberalists.

 

And just because a Republican ran the White House doesn't mean anything if the Democrats ran either of the houses.

[Phi for All]

I think making "progress in that region" could be considered a 'conservative decision' to go to war... or perhaps better put... that could be considered a reason why the war was a good idea by conservatives.

I can buy the retaliation for 9/11 angle, but that shouldn't include Iraq. Once the WMDs were no longer a good conservative reason for an invasion and occupation, you'd think conservatives would start to question whether the War on Terror is really a sound conservative approach. Not a reason to pull troops, since they're already there, but a good reason to question this neo-conservative manipulation of the platform. The platform that went from "NOT being the world's police" and "anti-welfare for Americans" to "wars on multiple fronts" and "billions in reconstruction and foreign aid".

 

Conservatives might be more interested in getting rid of totalitarian regimes and replacing them with liberal democracies for the free-market economy that is created rather than the humanitarian liberation of the people... I don't know.

This makes sense to me. Creating new markets is a requirement of good business policy.

 

But, either way, I think military interventionism is too broad a thing to be either mainly liberal or conservative in principle.

I think you're right. I guess it's a matter of scale and timing. Conservatives thought it was OK to spend hundreds of billions on Iraq, but are screaming at Obama for spending less than a billion on Libya. Bush had the budget (thanks to a liberal), while Obama was at the debt ceiling (thanks to a conservative). Military intervention doesn't seem to consistently follow either approach.

 

Calm down. While I'm not disputing the definition of Liberalism, per se, Classical Liberalism is all but extinct and bears hardly any resemblance to the Liberalism mainly practiced today, that of Social Liberalists.

[calm]OK.[/calm]

 

And just because a Republican ran the White House doesn't mean anything if the Democrats ran either of the houses.

I'm not really talking about Republicans and Democrats, but this is part of my point. The results of the distinctions between conservative and liberal (modern social, non-classically, non-extinct liberalism) are blurred anyway by political pluralism, so why do we allow ourselves to be manipulated by the seemingly rigid uses of those terms by politicians, pundits and the media?

 

And the uses aren't really rigid; they are used in such a way that the definitions change in the context and audience they're used for, but within those uses the definitions are meant to be rigidly interpreted. Liberal means one thing when a conservative says it, or it's mentioned when telling a story about a welfare abuser or an immigration problem. It means something else when a liberal uses it, or the story is about clean water or ecology management.

 

That's why I'd like more input on the definitions, so we can really examine whether any of them hold true in these times, and can be applied when it comes to modern political stances.

[JohnB]

Like imatfaal said, this will vary from nation to nation, but if pressed I would say that the main differences are that liberals/progressives are more idealistic while conservatives are more pragmatic. In the Australian experience the ideas for our social reforms come from the progressives, but it generally took the conservatives to actually make them work.

 

Conservatives are generally more tolerant than progressives as well. Progressives preach tolerance but always attempt to silence opposition. Calls that people should not be "allowed" to speak tend to come from the left and not the right.

 

Another difference is how the populace is viewed. To a conservative "individuals make up society", but to a progressive "society is made up of the people". An individual is easily identified as there is only one of them, a people are much harder to identify as the definition can be whatever you want it to be.

 

Liberal in anything means fewer restrictions. A liberal society restricts it's people less than a conservative society. A conservative society tries to preserve the traditions and culture of that society, and is likely to have more restrictions in order to preserve that culture and it's traditions. (Conservatives favour integration over multiculturalism.)

 

Examining this from Incendia rather than rebutting it. I think it depends on how you view "restrictions". Is one all encompassing rule more or less restrictive than 1,000 special rules? Conservatives do tend to prefer integration because it has one rule "If you want to live here, then you follow our cultural rules." Pretty much a national version of how people behave when visiting someones home. In essence it's an attitude that people come to the recieving nation because that nations culture and lifestyle is better than the one they ran away from. So why try to make the new home more like the place you ran from?

 

However multiculturalism doesn't work that way, it has many, many rules. People who believe in multiculturalism don't really, or more to the point they do provided the expression of culture is limited to wearing colourful clothing and having quaint "Cultural Festivals". Any other part of the "culture" is accepted or rejected on a case by case basis. While progressives will defend multiculturalism and feel quite superior to conservatives for doing so, in truth the only parts they really allow are those that don't offend their delicate sensibilities.

 

So which is more restrictive? A blanket "These are the rules" or a "We will encourage you to keep your original culture. Except this bit, and that bit, and that bit, and you really can't do this bit......" and so on.

[imatfaal]

the more I read in this thread the more I realise that it is not just nationality that will influence an answer; almost every part of our personal political make-up determines how we answer the question. I tried to be even handed yet my answers make it clear I approach the question from a left leaning economically socialist and politically liberal viewpoint and I think JohnB's post above shows similar characteristics but from a different perspective. ie Any definition of conservative with the word "reactionary" is bound to be from a opponent; even though it is a good and balanced description of the view.

 

One no longer needs to ask the politically charged question "are you a liberal or a conservative?" - merely ask the neutral question "could you define liberal and conservative?" Come to think of it, that's probably what [imath]\Phi[/imath] was doing all along.

[Phi for All]

Like imatfaal said, this will vary from nation to nation, but if pressed I would say that the main differences are that liberals/progressives are more idealistic while conservatives are more pragmatic. In the Australian experience the ideas for our social reforms come from the progressives, but it generally took the conservatives to actually make them work.

Perhaps it's that a new idea is progressive, but once adopted it becomes status quo.

 

I actually think this might be a practical approach to politics. The progressives come up with the new ideas, the pragmatists figure out the best way to make them work. One could actually hope it might hamper special interests in league with politicians from taking advantage of the system.

 

Conservatives are generally more tolerant than progressives as well. Progressives preach tolerance but always attempt to silence opposition. Calls that people should not be "allowed" to speak tend to come from the left and not the right.

That's interesting. In the US, the religious right calls themselves conservative and are the most intolerant of all when it comes to cultural and sexual diversity. I will say, though, we have our share of progressives who think some stances can't be tolerated and those who hold them shouldn't be allowed to speak.

 

Another difference is how the populace is viewed. To a conservative "individuals make up society", but to a progressive "society is made up of the people". An individual is easily identified as there is only one of them, a people are much harder to identify as the definition can be whatever you want it to be.

How do you feel the distinction is applied to politics? Is there a practical application of this distinction you can cite as an example of what you mean?

 

There is a concerted movement by conservative politicians (backed, I'm sure, by mega-corporate sponsors) towards corporate personhood, granting equal rights and considerations to corporations that people enjoy. Personally, I think it's a way to increase campaign donations and possibly gain some kind of block voting ability in the future. I also think it's a conflict of interest, much like corporations owning the media. People might assume their job is in jeopardy if they don't vote the same way their employer is voting, the same way it's possible for a television station news editor to fear public airing of a story that's negative to another asset his employer owns.

 

 

Examining this from Incendia rather than rebutting it. I think it depends on how you view "restrictions". Is one all encompassing rule more or less restrictive than 1,000 special rules? Conservatives do tend to prefer integration because it has one rule "If you want to live here, then you follow our cultural rules." Pretty much a national version of how people behave when visiting someones home. In essence it's an attitude that people come to the recieving nation because that nations culture and lifestyle is better than the one they ran away from. So why try to make the new home more like the place you ran from?

 

However multiculturalism doesn't work that way, it has many, many rules. People who believe in multiculturalism don't really, or more to the point they do provided the expression of culture is limited to wearing colourful clothing and having quaint "Cultural Festivals". Any other part of the "culture" is accepted or rejected on a case by case basis. While progressives will defend multiculturalism and feel quite superior to conservatives for doing so, in truth the only parts they really allow are those that don't offend their delicate sensibilities.

 

So which is more restrictive? A blanket "These are the rules" or a "We will encourage you to keep your original culture. Except this bit, and that bit, and that bit, and you really can't do this bit......" and so on.

Sometimes a big old blanket is much more restrictive than covering only the parts that need covering. As long as most agree on the need.

 

 

the more I read in this thread the more I realise that it is not just nationality that will influence an answer; almost every part of our personal political make-up determines how we answer the question. I tried to be even handed yet my answers make it clear I approach the question from a left leaning economically socialist and politically liberal viewpoint and I think JohnB's post above shows similar characteristics but from a different perspective. ie Any definition of conservative with the word "reactionary" is bound to be from a opponent; even though it is a good and balanced description of the view.

 

One no longer needs to ask the politically charged question "are you a liberal or a conservative?" - merely ask the neutral question "could you define liberal and conservative?" Come to think of it, that's probably what [imath]\Phi[/imath] was doing all along.

This is exactly what I wanted to do. I think it shows that these terms have become fairly meaningless, since they are interpreted too differently and only mean what you want them to mean within your own group, and even then it's questionable. I think it's dangerous when the media and the politicians can easily spin a statement using a couple of terms that can be interpreted so broadly by so many varied groups, groups who might realize they have more in common if such divisive terms were better understood.

[imatfaal]

I think we have reached a point where individual policies are the most important and useful defining feature; universal health care free at the point of use, markets will provide their own regulation which will be the most efficient for both the corporations and the consumer... you end up with touchstone policies that are more definitive than a name or description.

 

what intrigues me is the 'clanishness' of policies and how easy it is to predict what is acceptable to an individual just by knowing one or two small items of his/her political ideology. Whilst I wouldn't expect 100pct success rate, I would be happy to predict (and would expect a much higher strikerate than chance) an individuals beliefs on multiculturalism, universal healthcare, monetary/fiscal policy, and criminal justice all based on a few yes/no questions on the science of climate change.

[Phi for All]

I think we have reached a point where individual policies are the most important and useful defining feature; universal health care free at the point of use, markets will provide their own regulation which will be the most efficient for both the corporations and the consumer... you end up with touchstone policies that are more definitive than a name or description.

I agree but I still think these touchstone policies are vulnerable to media/special interest spin. And the easiest ones still seem to be liberal/conservative tagging. I just don't think people realize how this spin really affects them. I think some special education is needed to warn people of the manipulative effect of these words, how easily they can polarize the public when we need multiple viewpoints the most. But where would it come from? It's certainly not going to be happily offered by the media.

 

what intrigues me is the 'clanishness' of policies and how easy it is to predict what is acceptable to an individual just by knowing one or two small items of his/her political ideology. Whilst I wouldn't expect 100pct success rate, I would be happy to predict (and would expect a much higher strikerate than chance) an individuals beliefs on multiculturalism, universal healthcare, monetary/fiscal policy, and criminal justice all based on a few yes/no questions on the science of climate change.

Exactly. And yet, there is much more common ground there if you can get past the initial reaction the buzzwords create.

 

Take these statements about welfare:

#1 - "I don't want my taxes helping some guy sit on the couch and drink beer all day when he is fully capable of getting a job but just doesn't want to."

#2 - "I don't want a widow with three children to be out on the streets so I don't mind my tax dollars helping them."

 

or these statements about the military:

#3 - "I don't want the military to have a blank check from the taxpayers."

#4 - "I want this country's borders and it's citizens strongly defended against those who would harm us."

 

On the surface, it's really easy to label these feelings either conservative or liberal. But if you really ask people, you'll find most of them agree with ALL the statements. Only the most extreme stances disagree with all of them. So I think the conservative/liberal labels divide us into camps we might not belong in, or at the very least they put us on opposite sides of a fence rather than seated around a table.

[imatfaal]

Not sure if you will ever have seen the brilliant yes minister and yes prime minister. I cannot find a video of this scene unfortunately. I think it sums up both the spin and manipulation that all political questions are in danger of being warped by

 

Quote

Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?

Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.

[survey two]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

[does a double-take]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

 

 

unquote

 

 

from IMDB

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

If I have to wear a label I would prefer progressive... but following one path just because others say it is the path offends me....

[toastywombel]

This may help put things in perspective. . .

 

 

or