It should be pretty clear that we can't tell the conservatives from the liberals based on a political party designation. Regardless of what the parties call themselves, they often act much differently than one who understands the differences between their idealologies might expect. The last eight years should have taught us that much.

I thought it might be meaningful to review the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal". I'll skip all the sub-sets of each major philosophy, just saying that there are fiscal conservatives, social liberals, religious conservatives, green liberals, and so forth an so on. But let's just take a look at the definitions of the terms so we can each figure out what we really are.

Here's the description of one of the two political philosophies, leaving out the actual name. Which do you think it is? Is this what you believe?....

_________ is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals. _______ emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within ________ there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government. All _______, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

Those who identify themselves as __________, to distinguish themselves from ___________, oppose all government regulation of business and the economy, with the exception of laws against force and fraud, and support free market laissez-faire capitalism. In Europe, the term ________ is closer to the economic outlook of American _________. In the United States, __________ is most often used in the sense of modern ____________, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest.

OK, the opposite of the political philosophy above is described as follows.....

__________ has no ideology, in the sense of a program with some form of master plan. __________ strongly support the right of property. _________ looks to a modified free market order in which the state's role is to promote competition while maintaining the national interest, community and identity.

_____________ supports freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres. It is a fundamental belief of __________ that a government does not have the right to run up large debts and then throw the burden on the taxpayer; the taxpayers' right not to be taxed oppressively takes precedence even over paying back debts a government may have imprudently undertaken.

Green _____________ is a term used to refer to ______________ who have incorporated ecological concerns into their ideology. _____________ is a philosophy that supports preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture. ____________ seeks to apply the teachings of particular religious ideologies to politics, sometimes by proclaiming the value of those teachings, at other times seeking to have those teachings influence laws.

-----------------------------

OK, which is which? Which description is that of a "conservative" and which is a "liberal"?

Take a shot. I'll post the answer later in the thread. To the extent that you see some elements that attract you in both tells you that the difference between the political philosophies we refer to every day maybe isn't as great as is so often implied.

This may be a better definition. I think it's clear which side Obama falls on.

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/othe...beral-beliefs/

Great link DK. Except for the death penalty, I'm absolutely a liberal ... no surprise there!

A conservative is a liberal who was mugged the night before.

So there you have it.

The only problem is the people who founded and created our country were Conservatives, the people who wrote our Bill of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, etc, etc, etc were all Conservatives.... most of them Christians to.

Conservatism it what made our country the most prosperous, strongest and the most generous I might add in the world.

Now we are swinging 180 degrees to a liberal / socialist agenda and you really think it will be good for our country when it hasn't been for any other country?

Let's as a country turn away from what works and turn towards something that never works. Seems logical to me.

Originally Posted by dklassen

So there you have it.

The only problem is the people who founded and created our country were Conservatives, the people who wrote our Bill of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, etc, etc, etc were all Conservatives.... most of them Christians to.

Conservatism it what made our country the most prosperous, strongest and the most generous I might add in the world.

Now we are swinging 180 degrees to a liberal / socialist agenda and you really think it will be good for our country when it hasn't been for any other country?

Let's as a country turn away from what works and turn towards something that never works. Seems logical to me.

Let me get this straight DK. It is your opinion that this country has only grown and prospered under a Republican???? Is that correct???

Originally Posted by dklassen

So there you have it.

The only problem is the people who founded and created our country were Conservatives, the people who wrote our Bill of Rights, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, etc, etc, etc were all Conservatives.... most of them Christians to.

Conservatism it what made our country the most prosperous, strongest and the most generous I might add in the world.

Now we are swinging 180 degrees to a liberal / socialist agenda and you really think it will be good for our country when it hasn't been for any other country?

Let's as a country turn away from what works and turn towards something that never works. Seems logical to me.

What part of the last 8 years worked for you?
"Compassionate Conservatism" my

Generally we've either had a conservative president or a conservative congress to balance things out. Obama is the most radical far left president we've ever elected and so are his policies. Add to that the far left controlling congress and now a now bunch of spineless republications and we are most certainly going down a very dangerous road.

But hey, I could really care less, it ain't my problem. Our children and grandchildren are going to pay and suffer for it. I'll be taking a dirt nap by then.

DK: You cannot reason with drones. Save your breadth.

The last 7 years worked for me because we have not had a terrorist attack.

Obama will fail because his policies are socialist. History will prove that out. Too bad we will all have to suffer because of the ill-reasoning drones.

Many things worked well for me the last eight years as did many business owners I know. However, GWB is no conservative and that's where we went wrong. Now were even deeper in the hole with our current President.

I'll ask you the same question in eight years.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Generally we've either had a conservative president or a conservative congress to balance things out. Obama is the most radical far left president we've ever elected and so are his policies. Add to that the far left controlling congress and now a now bunch of spineless republications and we are most certainly going down a very dangerous road.

But hey, I could really care less, it ain't my problem. Our children and grandchildren are going to pay and suffer for it. I'll be taking a dirt nap by then.

"Times... They are a-changin'"..... DK, the world is changing as we speak. I doubt if you'll ever see the type of "conservative" President you're referring to ever in office again.

Originally Posted by TallerTrees

DK: You cannot reason with drones. Save your breadth.

The last 7 years worked for me because we have not had a terrorist attack.

Obama will fail because his policies are socialist. History will prove that out. Too bad we will all have to suffer because of the ill-reasoning drones.

TallerTrees, I am trying very hard to mend my name calling ways. You really don't want to go down that road, do you??? At least not with me.

Originally Posted by dklassen

This may be a better definition. I think it's clear which side Obama falls on.

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/othe...beral-beliefs/

DK - Great link.

When one runs down the two definitions and columns, it becomes very obvious the liberal column has an idyllic bend (no surprise, and not wrong), while the conservative is much more pragmatic (again, no surprise and not wrong).

As I went down the columns, a few interesting points became crystal

1. Abortion: So when does "life" begin? If at a state-mandated point (e.g., at first breath outside the womb, or when no longer requiring external life support, or at age 10 years), then that point can be moved at the whim and convenience of the state. Or as the Chinese have done, any any point after Child#1's birth.

2. Affirmative Action. If it is to correct a past injustice, when does it end? Now that a member of the most prevalent minority group has become President, is that proof positive that affirmative action programs for that minority group are no longer needed? If not, what is the criteria for affirmative action program termination?

3. Death Penalty. If the state should not terminate a life which does not have a recorded birth certificate, why should the state end a life of someone at all? Does "eye for an eye" really mean, "if you take a life, you need to restore life" by using oneself as a medical source for replacement organs, blood etc. and as a participant in medical research?

4. Economy. How can government "protect" us from big business when almost all of the elected and appointees either came from big business and are predominately dependent on big business for campaign contributions?

5. Education - School Vouchers. If we use SAT scores as a baseline, the public education system started its downward sprial in the 1960's. Why is that so? Does throwing more money at public education without even recognizing what caused its performance deficiencies solve anything or is just feeding the cancer?

6. The Environment. Earth has seen times of high tropical and high humidity, reduced temperatures and humidity (where did the oceans come from?), Ice Age, and ...well, the paleontologists can described the "ages" better than any of us. That being the case, what IS the "correct" environment, or is it always in evolution?

7. Gun Control. The Founding Fathers thought this issue important enough to place in the Bill of Rights, as they were all-to-familiar how a socialist/monarchial state can control the populace when the populace loses the ability to defend itself from a tyrannical state. If "guns kill people" and that's the reason for they should be state-controlled, then should we do the same with knives, bows-and-arrows, baseball bats, cars, etc.? Is this "gun fear" a predominately urban mindset which declines radically the further one gets away from urban settings?

8. Health Care. Is this a "basic right?" If we are all to pay for health care for everyone, is that everyone within our borders only, everyone everywhere? What is the "standard of care" to be state-provided - who decides it? Is there a maximum cost limit?

9. Homeland Security. It looks like nobody likes the Patriot Act now, but everyone wanted supreme domestic protection after 9/11.

10. Immigration. Are there jobs that Americans won't do, or jobs that liberals won't do? If you "amnesty" illegals, more will come (that's already been proven), and how does that affect the unemployment rate? Should the U.S. only permit employment-based immigration when the unemployment rate is under __% ?

11. Religion. The Founding Fathers, all of different Protestant sects, wanted to insure that a state-directed religion (in their case, Anglican Church), didn't become mandated and controlling. That was the "separation" they meant. It did not mean a state which ignored the existence of God, as shown in all writings.

12. Same-Sex Marriage. From the state's standpoint, marriage is a specific type of contract which places special responsibilities on the parties and has a long history of interpretive case law to base court decisions when the parties seek to terminate the contract. I'm not sure any legal authority wants to claim that same-sex unions mirror heterosexual unions in all legal circumstances, and just 'saying it's so" places the courts in the unenviable position of having to "make law" from the bench each time some type of union difference appears. Does anyone want judges, elected and appointed - county, state, tribal, territorial, and federal - in the law-making business on this issue? The myriad of conflicting decisions is mind-boggling.

13. Social Security. Liberals seem against it until they're old enough to collect retirement benefits from it.

14. Taxes. Those who want higher taxes are always free to donate money to the General Treasury. What is amazing is that liberals seem to believe higher taxes re okay for entitlement programs, but not for national defense. So, the "Robin Hood" principle is all right (until one becomes one of the "rich'), and the state will have the authority to determine who is "rich," as long as it isn't me.

15. United Nations. If 'the UN is such a worthwhile entity, perhaps it needs to be outside of the USA so that the USA doesn't appear to be too controlling of it. Reykjavik, Iceland would be a logical choice, as it is as independent a place as anywhere. The USA should pay the relocation costs for the UN, and let's see how many of these diplomats will go there, as opposed the fun and life of the Big Apple.

16. War on Iraq. We went into Iraq to wax one of the international bullies who were accessories-before-the-fact for 9/11. Our national safety depended on a two-fisted response to the 9/11 strikes. The rest is all diplomatic dance. It worked - the bullies have backed off.

17. War on Terror/Terrorism - I'm too close to this to respond. Suffice to say, it's real. We've been targets for terrorism since WWII, and most people have no idea on how many incidents were prevented prior to 9/11, and how our potential to prevent terror on the homeland was diminished during the Clinton years.

18. Welfare. "If you teach a man to fish...." provides the person with maintaining their dignity. We now have families who are multi-generation welfare recipients - and how do we break the dependency cycle? Or is the intent to create/maintain governmental dependents? And if so, why?

As one can see, each topic can create many responses, and what we end up with are conservative-liberals and liberal-conservatives. Oh yes, and then there are the progressive-neanderthals (like me) who don't tell others how to live, and am ticked at those who think they can live my life better than me.

Originally Posted by dklassen

This may be a better definition. I think it's clear which side Obama falls on.

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/othe...beral-beliefs/

I'm glad that you found this site to explain to others what the term liberal and conservative mean. I've known which side I'm on all along.

There are other choices. I, like many, am fiscaly conservetive and socialy liberal; making me a Libertarian. Check out these sites.

www.cato.org

www.lp.org