Liberalism

[Nathan]

Political Liberalism as we know it, aside from its first major incarnation in Ancient Greece (especially Athens), can be said to have begun during the Enlightenment. Essentially, what this was was a rejection of Monarchism; the Liberals were thinkers who advocated democratic government, either under the Crown or without the Crown altogether. Conservatives, it follows, were those who distrusted democracy and advocated a continued Monarchist state or a return to Monarchism. (This explains one of the key differences between British Conservatism and American "conservatism" -- the monarchy played and still plays an essential role in the former.)

When the United States was founded, it was touted as the "great Liberal experiment." That is, it was to be a democratic nation. It signified a radical departure from the politics of Britain, free from the Crown. In this way, America still is the shining example of Liberalism in the world. The fact of the matter is that ALL Americans, unless he be a rebel monarchist (or a communist or what have you), are Liberals. Whether Democrat or Republican, if you believe in democratic government, you are a Liberal. At least, in this historical sense.

Within this Liberal state, however, something curious occured over the years: wholly new definitions of "liberalism" and "conservatism" sprouted up. Both liberalism and conservatism included those who supported democratic government. A Conservative, in this new sense, came to mean someone who believed in limited power and control for the elected government; a liberal meant someone who opted to give the elected government more power and control.

In the mid-to-late twentieth century, another definitional shift happened within the U.S., and this is the one that we live with today. Conservatism has undergone big changes: the dominant force within this camp is what is known as "neoconservatism," which advocates more power and control for the elected government and a robust foreign policy aiming to spread democratic government abroad, particularly in the Middle East so their good friends in Israel can live more peacefully. Liberalism today, on the other hand, has become a chaotic world of various forms of socialism.

Thoughts?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1433235' date='Dec 12 2007, 10:10 AM']Political Liberalism as we know it, aside from its first major incarnation in Ancient Greece (especially Athens), can be said to have begun during the Enlightenment. Essentially, what this was was a rejection of Monarchism; the Liberals were thinkers who advocated democratic government, either under the Crown or without the Crown altogether. Conservatives, it follows, were those who distrusted democracy and advocated a continued Monarchist state or a return to Monarchism. (This explains one of the key differences between British Conservatism and American "conservatism" -- the monarchy played and still plays an essential role in the former.)

When the United States was founded, it was touted as the "great Liberal experiment." That is, it was to be a democratic nation. It signified a radical departure from the politics of Britain, free from the Crown. In this way, America still is the shining example of Liberalism in the world. The fact of the matter is that ALL Americans, unless he be a rebel monarchist (or a communist or what have you), are Liberals. Whether Democrat or Republican, if you believe in democratic government, you are a Liberal. At least, in this historical sense.[/quote]
Thank you first of all for making the distinction between John Locke, Declaration of Independence-style, 18th century Liberalism and liberalism in its modern political sense.

[quote name='Nathan' post='1433235' date='Dec 12 2007, 10:10 AM']Within this Liberal state, however, something curious occurred over the years: wholly new definitions of "liberalism" and "conservatism" sprouted up. Both liberalism and conservatism included those who supported democratic government. A Conservative, in this new sense, came to mean someone who believed in limited power and control for the elected government; a liberal meant someone who opted to give the elected government more power and control.[/quote]
I'd like to refine this a little bit. "Liberals" are those who view government power and control as a means to providing for or ensuring a public good. During the Civil Rights Era in the US, this would have manifested itself through, e.g. the Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act, etc. More recently, the Americans with Disabilities Act might also be viewed as falling into this category. However, in certain cases this can be perceived as "going to far," e.g. legislating for political correctness. Where "conservatives" take a different view is in what they term the Nanny State, or what they would perceive as government intrusion into private life. This manifests itself as opposition to anything from government regulation of business to seatbelt laws to affirmative action to restrictions on gun ownership.

[quote name='Nathan' post='1433235' date='Dec 12 2007, 10:10 AM']In the mid-to-late twentieth century, another definitional shift happened within the U.S., and this is the one that we live with today. Conservatism has undergone big changes: the dominant force within this camp is what is known as "neoconservatism," which advocates more power and control for the elected government and a robust foreign policy aiming to spread democratic government abroad, particularly in the Middle East so their good friends in Israel can live more peacefully. Liberalism today, on the other hand, has become a chaotic world of various forms of socialism.

Thoughts?[/quote]
What I've opined in the past regarding "big government" is that "conservatives" aren't opposed to "big government" per se, they just want it to be big in the ways [i]they[/i] want it to be big. The reality is, federal government spending it out of control, and that after 6 years of a Republican majority. You state that "liberalism" has "become a chaotic world of various forms of socialism." With Ross Perot, I am of the view that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the parties, apart from a handful of social issues, and both parties are deeply in bed with corporate interests. Those corporate interests, more than anything else, are what is really damaging our political institutions and civic life.

[dairygirl4u2c]

conservatives cling to what's old. liberals cling to what's new. both are off if they do it mindlessly. i've said it before but.... extreme liberalism and conservatism are artificial social conventions... if you cling to either, you might want to consider whether your beliefs are artificial too.
i wonder if the extreme conservatives know they're just like hillary clinton, only from the conservative side. or extreme liberals are like well i guess ron paul only with ron paul being for banning gay marriage and all that moral stuff.

plus a lot of people are defined by their extremeness. they only defend their liberal or conserative ideology, especially the key ones like gun rights, and are not capable of knowing ambiguity. they dress up like hippies, smoke pot, promiscuous sex frequently etc etc. or on the other side, john wayne and any conservative icons are their heroes, and they chew tobacco, hunt, drive big trucks, and wear jeans and shirt, and all about guns by golly. (the promiscuous sex is more hidden when it does occur)
this is when you know you're really bad.

i still think it was conservatives who were for slavery or at least state's rights, and against woman suffrage. you'd never hear them admit it though. or that the earth is flat, or any cling to what's old.

Edited December 12, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

consider whether you're a textbook, pamphlet style, political person. that's not a compliment if you are.

[Dismas]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1433235' date='Dec 12 2007, 09:10 AM']In the mid-to-late twentieth century, another definitional shift happened within the U.S., and this is the one that we live with today. Conservatism has undergone big changes: the dominant force within this camp is what is known as "neoconservatism," which advocates more power and control for the elected government and a robust foreign policy aiming to spread democratic government abroad, particularly in the Middle East so their good friends in Israel can live more peacefully. Liberalism today, on the other hand, has become a chaotic world of various forms of socialism.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Neoconservativism does exist and has some support. The disproportional clout of the neoconservative section is based mostly on a lack of acceptable choices for candidates. Let's face it, most people entering public service have no intention of serving, but rather wish to leave some sort of messianic legacy. That and Rockefeller Republicans are better connected than real conservatives, and their message sounds "nicer".

[dairygirl4u2c]

i've never seen someone put so much effort into trying to empiracally define why conservatives are the way they are...
[url="http://writch.com/ConservatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.p"]http://writch.com/ConservatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.p
f[/url]


[quote]Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism,dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure,
regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification).
A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r ! .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.[/quote]

Edited December 12, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='Nathan' post='1433235' date='Dec 12 2007, 10:10 AM']Political Liberalism as we know it, aside from its first major incarnation in Ancient Greece (especially Athens), can be said to have begun during the Enlightenment. Essentially, what this was was a rejection of Monarchism; the Liberals were thinkers who advocated democratic government, either under the Crown or without the Crown altogether. Conservatives, it follows, were those who distrusted democracy and advocated a continued Monarchist state or a return to Monarchism. (This explains one of the key differences between British Conservatism and American "conservatism" -- the monarchy played and still plays an essential role in the former.)

When the United States was founded, it was touted as the "great Liberal experiment." That is, it was to be a democratic nation. It signified a radical departure from the politics of Britain, free from the Crown. In this way, America still is the shining example of Liberalism in the world. The fact of the matter is that ALL Americans, unless he be a rebel monarchist (or a communist or what have you), are Liberals. Whether Democrat or Republican, if you believe in democratic government, you are a Liberal. At least, in this historical sense.

Within this Liberal state, however, something curious occured over the years: wholly new definitions of "liberalism" and "conservatism" sprouted up. Both liberalism and conservatism included those who supported democratic government. A Conservative, in this new sense, came to mean someone who believed in limited power and control for the elected government; a liberal meant someone who opted to give the elected government more power and control.

In the mid-to-late twentieth century, another definitional shift happened within the U.S., and this is the one that we live with today. Conservatism has undergone big changes: the dominant force within this camp is what is known as "neoconservatism," which advocates more power and control for the elected government and a robust foreign policy aiming to spread democratic government abroad, particularly in the Middle East so their good friends in Israel can live more peacefully. Liberalism today, on the other hand, has become a chaotic world of various forms of socialism.

Thoughts?[/quote]
Are these your own words, or is it a quote from someone else's work?

Some good points, though I'd disagree regarding the premise that the American founding was a totally radical departure from all established forms of government, in the manner of the French Revolution.
I'd strongly recommend reading the works of the brilliant Russell Kirk, one of the intellectual founders of the modern American conservative movement, particularly [url="http://www.amazon.com/Roots-American-Order-Russell-Kirk/dp/1882926994/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197509669&sr=8-1"][i]The Roots of American Order[/i][/url], [url="http://www.amazon.com/American-Cause-Russell-Kirk/dp/1882926935/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1"][i]The American Cause[/i][/url], [url="http://www.amazon.com/Rights-Duties-Reflections-Conservative-Constitution/dp/0965320820/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197510069&sr=1-2"][i]Rights and Duties: Reflections on Our Conservative Constitution,[/i][/url], url="http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Mind-Burke-Eliot/dp/0895261715/ref=pd_sim_b_title_3"][i]The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot [/i][/url], and [url="http://www.amazon.com/Americas-British-Culture-Library-Conservative/dp/156000066X/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1"][i]America's British Culture[/i][/url]
Kirk makes a strong case that America was founded largely on conservative principles, and that the Constitution was framed to preserve traditional rights held under British Common Law which were under attack at the time.
I'd especially recommend Kirk to any who think that an "American conservative" is an oxymoron.

And the American founding fathers [i]never[/i] referred to their fledgling republic as a "democracy," and in fact a number of the American founders were rather outspoken critics of democracy.
In fact, James Madison, "the Father of the Constitution," wrote in his "Essay #10" of the Federalist Papers that "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

You seem to basically be implying that to be a conservative, one must be a monarchist.
It is true, of course, that classical liberalism means something quite different from modern "liberalism," which is more accurately described as a form of socialism.
And "neoconservatism" is a rather new breed of animal (made up mostly of former liberals), which really has very little in common with traditional conservatism. Old-school "paleocons" are often very critical of "neocons."

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1433266' date='Dec 12 2007, 11:37 AM']What I've opined in the past regarding "big government" is that "conservatives" aren't opposed to "big government" per se, they just want it to be big in the ways [i]they[/i] want it to be big. The reality is, federal government spending it out of control, and that after 6 years of a Republican majority.[/quote]
Those are "neocons," rather than true conservatives, who favor limited government.
Those politicians, Republican or Democrat, who push for ever more government spending are not acting on conservative principles, whatever they may call themselves.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1433274' date='Dec 12 2007, 12:17 PM']i wonder if the extreme conservatives know they're just like hillary clinton, only from the conservative side. or extreme liberals are like well i guess ron paul only with ron paul being for banning gay marriage and all that moral stuff.[/quote]
Oh really, dairygirl? I was not aware of this amazing fact. You teach us all new and woundrous things everyday.
I didn't know that I (presumably one of your "extreme conservatives") was just like Hillary Clinton.
Is it my support of big government spending and higher taxes, my promotion of "abortion rights," or do we just look similar?
Neither did I know that extreme liberals are just like Ron Paul. Were they really on the limited constitutional government, states' rights bandwagon all along, or this a new development?
In your wisdom, please enlighten us more on these strange and wondrous things!

[quote]plus a lot of people are defined by their extremeness. they only defend their liberal or conserative ideology, especially the key ones like gun rights, and are not capable of knowing ambiguity. they dress up like hippies, smoke pot, promiscuous sex frequently etc etc. or on the other side, john wayne and any conservative icons are their heroes, and they chew tobacco, hunt, drive big trucks, and wear jeans and shirt, and all about guns by golly. (the promiscuous sex is more hidden when it does occur)
this is when you know you're really bad.[/quote]
Yep, watch out for them gun-totin', 'bacca-spittin cowboy types in their big trucks! Nuthin' but bad news!

You've really clarified the truth of the important political issues of our day by listing hippie and redneck stereotypes. Thank you.

Or perhaps the fact that I don't chaw 'bacca or drive a big pickup should convince you of the sophisicated intelligence and impeccable logic of my right-wing reasoning.

[quote]i still think it was conservatives who were for slavery or at least state's rights, and against woman suffrage. you'd never hear them admit it though. or that the earth is flat, or any cling to what's old.[/quote]
Yep, leave it to dairy to explain what conservatives are really about. Don't pay attention to what they say - dairygirl knows what evil lurks in the hearts of conservatives!

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1433460' date='Dec 12 2007, 07:52 PM']i've never seen someone put so much effort into trying to empiracally define why conservatives are the way they are...
[url="http://writch.com/ConservatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.p"]http://writch.com/ConservatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition.p
f[/url][/quote]


The moment someone tries to "psychoanalyze" their opponents, rather than engage their ideas, they've already lost.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Oh really, dairygirl? I was not aware of this amazing fact. You teach us all new and woundrous things everyday.
I didn't know that I (presumably one of your "extreme conservatives") was just like Hillary Clinton.
Is it my support of big government spending and higher taxes, my promotion of "abortion rights," or do we just look similar?
Neither did I know that extreme liberals are just like Ron Paul. Were they really on the limited constitutional government, states' rights bandwagon all along, or this a new development?
In your wisdom, please enlighten us more on these strange and wondrous things![/quote]

i'm not sure why you twist everything i say. i didn't say hardcore cons were like hillary in that they support big government etc. i said they were, like her, extreme, but only on hte conservative side. please read what i wrote.
now, some people could legitimately be conservative to the extreme, as that article suggests, and not have psychological underpinnings to conform to social conventions. probability simply dictates taht. but, for most people who are extreme, their beliefs are conformed to social conventions by psycoholical and environmental underpinnings, not anything objective, as that article is basically verifying.

the founding fathers deferred to the states as much as they could, it is true. that doesn't mean the federal government should have no say in it, as a matter of law, but especially as a matter of policy.
the legal components for how much power they can wield are nuanced. sticking to the policy arguments, instead of cop out legal arguments, the conservatives have even less basis to stake their claims that more than next to nil national government is bad policy, cause as far as i've seen, their arguments are lacking when extreme.
if you want to challenge me on these points please start a thread so everyone can see what an avid issue dodger and word twister you are.

Edited December 13, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c