Information
ARCHIVES
Monday, July 16, 2024
By Steven L. Taylor

Apropos of two earlier posts (here and here), here’s a question for the audience: what is your definition of “conservative” and “liberal” in the American political context?

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments/Trackbacks (27)|
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

27 Responses to “A Question for the Audience”

  • el
  • pt
    1. Toki-chan Says:

      I know it may seem the obvious answer, but in alot of cases of people who don’t know alot about politics or are hand feed by Fox or less so CNN, it comes down to three things: War (and the defense of our country), Abortions, and Gay Marriage (well really morals which would make it two..).

      Conservatives are the ones against Abortions, Gay Marriage, and for war.

      Liberal the opposite.

      However, with Iraq going to hell in hand basket, I think this is starting to change. I think some of the evangelical (or southern) left is starting wake up the fact that it isn’t just about the politicians agreeing with these three things isn’t enough to go vote for the republican who is there. Also, in the case people putting in the Democrats in thinking they would do any good, and voting for them just because they weren’t the republicans. However, now, with the elections coming up again, (I would hope, though I don’t think it will be true) that people are looking past the party and looking for who can get us out of this hole we dug ourselves. I think the three things that caused the red vs. Blue and being replaced with Purple people looking for whoever will be the best for America.

      Hope that didn’t get to far off track…. sorry if it did.

    2. Joseph Steinberg Says:

      liberal= Benthamite
      conservative=Burkean

    3. KipEsquire Says:

      Conservatives seeks to oppress us culturally, liberals seek to oppress us economically. Though neither has a monopoly against the other.

    4. Jim Henley Says:

      Right now today, in the American political context, a “conservative” is a religious nationalist or a fellow traveler of same. Older definitions are inoperative.

      A “liberal” is a fiscal redistributionist with a commitment to sexual pluralism. Older definitions are inoperative.

    5. Dispatches From Blogblivion Says:

      Conservative Verus Liberal

      Steven Taylor posed a question: "what is your definition of “conservative” and “liberal” in the American political context?" I was going to write a comment there, first inclined toward the traditional definitions, then…

    6. Ratoe Says:

      what is your definition of “conservative” and “liberal” in the American political context?

      More or less arbitrary labels used to simplify political discourse needed to accommodate the rather un-reflective nature of contemporary modes of information communication.

      Hasn’t anyone written about the emergence of these two terms within the context of political discourse over the past 30 years? I would be particularly interested in learning about how the term “liberal” has been dramatically re-defined.

      When you spend anytime in Europe or Canada, you see that “liberal” still retains its classical meaning–even within popular discourse.

      Why has there been such a different historical trajectory in the US?

    7. SGEW Says:

      Liberal = Paine
      Conservative = Burke

      ;)

    8. Max Lybbert Says:

      When you look at “liberal” and “conservative” parties internationally, it becomes more obvious that the labels aren’t much more than brand names.

      The definition of “conservative” is “resistant to change.” But isn’t it the liberals/progressives who spent the last six or seven years demanding that Bush *not* change anything? Don’t adjust tax levels, don’t change Social Security, or the tort system, or any number of other things. Which group is being resistant to change?

      Brazil is considered much more liberal than the US, but abortion is illegal there and there is no serious drive to change that. A number of people in the US would consider that impossible. Likewise, in the US, a conservative New Yorker will fall to the left of a liberal Southerner.

      So, in the US, I consider somebody liberal who supports certain policy decisions, or who makes certain arguments, or who generally does X. And I consider somebody conservative who supports certain different policy positions, makes certain different arguments, and generally does Y.

    9. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      Max hits a key definitional issue, in that when the words are used properly they tend to be about orientation to change, not to specific policy issues. For example, the Politburo in the Soviet Union circa 1982 was quite conservative.

      Burke is frequently cited as a key conservative thinker (and is done so twice above), yet I wonder what is it about Burke that is directly relevant to current day US politics and/or if most “conservatives” have any idea who Burke was or what he wrote.

      In regards to Paine, in contemporary terms he would be considered a radical libertarian.

      And I don’t think that Bentham is at all relevant to to contemporary usages of the term “liberal” in US politics.

    10. jhaygood Says:

      The main point I think is that conservatism & liberalism are not simply opposites of each other; much that is not useful in our national dialog comes from this error. For example, some conservatives who want lower taxes imply that liberals want higher taxes. That’s just dumb.

      As a rule, we all want the same things: The right to live and raise our families with a sense of security, freedom and possibility, with a minimum of governmental interference. We define those things in different ways at times. But to break it down in simple, general terms, it’s this:

      Liberal = we are our brother’s keeper.
      Conservative = we are not.

    11. jhaygood Says:

      In my previous comment I made the very mistake I criticize. It would have been better stated as:

      Liberal = Our government should emphasize justice.

      Conservative = Our government should emphasize individual freedom.

    12. Chris Lawrence Says:

      I’ve never really bought that American conservatism is all that Burkean. I tend to think of conservatism and liberalism in the US as divergent interpretations of “founding thought” (what many books would call classical liberalism, but I’d probably label as Madisonian republicanism to get away from the false equivalence “classical liberalism = libertarianism”) rather than outgrowths of the European political philosophies with similar labels.

      I think an operational definition of US liberalism is continued support for the legacies of the New Deal and Great Society (while discounting the degree to which the government meddled in personal liberty at the peak of both periods) while the operational definition of US conservatism is nostalgia for an imagined America prior to the New Deal or perhaps in the 1950s (usually with blinders about the degree of social inequality, particularly in terms of gender and race, in the US during those periods). These definitions suggest neither ideology is very forward-looking.

    13. R. Alex Says:

      People get too hung up on social and economic conservatism and liberalism. They’re both biproducts of the Republican and Democratic coalitions. I believe that the primary difference between liberals and conservatives is cultural.

      A liberal and a conservative are walking in a field and see a big giant wall of stone that they cannot see past. The conservative looks at it and says “Wow, something very important must have motivated people to build this wall. It should be respected.” A liberal looks at it and says “This wall is blocking our way, it must be removed.” Neither side really knows what’s on the other side of the wall. Sometimes it’s a monster, sometimes it’s a garden. Neither side is always right and neither side is always wrong. The difference is whether absent any other information whether we should treat the wall as something to be respected or destroyed.

      For conservatives, the “wall” is the cultural tradition that guards family, church, patriotism, and American way of life as it has exists or ideally existed at some point in the past. Most of what conservatives believe spring from a defense of these things. What lies behind the wall is usually a monster that will tear through the fabric of society. Their economic agenda is also defined in these terms. Reliance on the government was a radical cultural shift that ultimately weakens the family and strikes at the work ethic that they believe defines this country. Conservative opposition to government evaporates when it is seen as being tied to one of the above traditions (or other traditions that I’ve forgotten about). This in turn attracted the business community, made an intellectual case for why What’s Good For General Motors Is Good For America, and joined the party.

      Liberals don’t so much want to tear down the above (though some clearly do) but to remove constraints. Family is important, but it should be redefined to include single parents, divorced parents, gay couples, and so on. Rules for which there are no obvious reason are inherently unnecessary constraints. What lies behind the wall is usually a garden. Sexual freedom, material freedom (ie not having to worry about where the next meal is coming from), and social freedom. Liberal economic policy is drawn from this well: with economic security comes the freedom to pursue as much as possible and divorce action from consequence however much is possible without directly limiting the freedom of someone else. Even their gun policy, which is considered anti-freedom by conservatives, is an extension of this philosophy: it’s the freedom not to fear for one’s safety while in public. However, when it comes to tough-on-crime measures, incarceration, and capital punishment this idea is secondary to the freedom of the convict to live as freely as possible without posing a threat to society.

      Sometimes these desires run headlong into one another within a group. For instance, when it comes to the immigration debate on one side you have a bunch of conservatives that see them as a threat to American culture (either because they’re bringing in their own culture or subverting rule of law). On the other side of the internal debate you have people that see immigration as a very American process and see opposition to it as something of a departure (and you have the business conservative tag-alongs that like cheap labor). Meanwhile on the left artistic expression butts heads with the cultural freedoms of select groups. So you have some liberals that believe that women are being constrained by mean and demeaning stereotypes put forth by art and you have others that don’t care because it’s much worse to constrain artists.

      At the end of the day, it seems to me that it comes back to culture and the degree to which we should rely on the cultural norms and ideals of the present or past (real or illusory) or whether we see historical norms and ideals as obstacles on our journey towards human freedom and perfection.

    14. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      To this point, I like Chris’s definitions the best, as I think it is the most accurate as it fits US politics.

      I would agree that “classical liberalism” does not equal “libertarianism”–but would add that I think that contemporary libertarianism is a particular evolution from classical liberalism, as is contemporary “liberalism” and “conservatism” with some other elements grafted on to the different orientations.

      And I agree about the progressivity of the two views.

    15. The Gun Toting Liberal Says:

      I believe the main thing separating conservatives from liberals is the disagreement between the two groups in determining the intent behind our Founding Fathers’ assertion that, in part, the Government is to “promote the general welfare” of the Citizenry.

      Oversimplified, surely, but I believe this marks the original point where the disagreement began, in pertainence to American liberalism and conservatism, at least. As for a world view of the two, commenters here have already done a great job of answering the question posed :-)

    16. MSS Says:

      Ratoe asks a key question, regarding the terms “liberal” and “conservative”:

      “Why has there been such a different historical trajectory in the US?”

      I suspect it has to do with the historical sociology of the politics of these countries: the absence in the US of a real landed class, and the absence of a socialist left. (Presumably these two are related, but it has been a long time since I read Barrington Moore or even Lipset.) In Europe, the struggle for free markets and free political expression–the hallmarks of classical liberalism–required limiting a state that was either controlled by or sympathetic to (depending on the country) the landed elements and the established church (the very forces that defense of made for a “conservative” position).

      In the US, the political system was founded as a “new nation” without either a landed gentry or an established church. That is, the US was founded on liberal principles, and included in its constitution an explicit statement of civil rights against the state (itself a term barely used here in the way it is elsewhere, but that’s another topic!). Later on–especially at the New Deal and later still the Great Society–there would emerge a movement, mainly from within the existing political elite, to use the state as a force for ameliorating inequality and entrenching new classes of claimants to rights. Because it was not led principally by socialists but also was not anti-statist (as were the Euro-liberals who historically faced states that were protecting privilege), it came to be called “liberal” while those who advocated the 18th century notion of limited rights and a limited state became the “conservatives.” In Europe, on the other hand, the labels of “liberal” and “conservative” were already taken and it was socialists–a new elite from outside the established political class–who advocated a more expansive state.

      It occurs to me that this doesn’t explain Canada as well as Europe, but Canada does have a “left” to a degree unseen in the US, so I think it still accounts for the fundamental question of why Canadians understand the liberal-conservative distinction more as Europeans do and less as Americans. It also accounts for why informed Americans are puzzled that the NDP (left) and Liberal party do not join forces. To a Canadian, that is not much of a puzzle, as they understand that the left is distinct from either liberal or conservative, and not just a more “extreme” wing of the former.

      I also like Chris’s point about “founding thought” and Madisonian republicanism and the absence of “forward-looking” by either mainstream American ideology. Chris sure nailed that one!

    17. Political Mavens » A Question for the Audience Says:

      [...] How do you define “liberal” and “conservative” in the US political context? discuss. [...]

    18. Political Mavens » A Question for the Audience Says:

      [...] How do you define “liberal” and “conservative” in the US political context? discuss. [...]

    19. Joseph Steinberg Says:

      Response to Taylor at #9:

      If one looks ideologically at conservatism and liberalism in America, I think conservatism is becoming even more Burkean than it was. I was reading Micklethwait’s and Wooldridge’s “The Right Nation” (a good antidote to American exceptionalism) and I recall my Burke and utilitarianism from college. According to M/W, Burke: suspicion of the state, liberty over equality, patriotism, institutions and hierarachies, skepticism about progress, and elitism. William F. Buckley distilled conservatism into traditionalism, libertarianism, and anticommunism. Leo Strauss definitely upheld the last three. The first three Burkean ideas still apply to conservatives. And, contra M/W, I would argue that the last three do, too. The Economist has argued that generational progress economically is slowing down, as reflected in incomes and education. Buried under the pile of crap about rugged individualism, is a conservative agenda to freeze market liberalism within religious and class boundaries.

      Liberals, on the other hand, most prominently on free trade or education, talk about the virtues of comparative advantage for the greater utility, national priorities supplanting local prejudices (like the last immigration debate), and destroying prejudice and religion frontally. Bentham conceived of individuals, not as workers or employers, church-goers, etc. Bentham’s vision was fully progressive also.

      Politically, though, both parties have mongrelized conservatism and liberalism to maximize their chances at the polls. But, traditional vs. utilitarian is where both have their center.

    20. Keith K Says:

      The old definition of liberal, or what it’s evolved into? Liberalism used to be all about the individual and equal justice. It’s evolved into socialism for the most part as far as the govt intervening goes, and a throwing off of the traditional values that hamper human freedom. It’s the thought that human nature is evolving to a more enlightened state.

      Conservatism is basically the conservation of traditional values, the things that were important during the founding of the country. It’s a belief that the Constitution is not a flexible document that can be interpreted as desired. It’s the recognition that human nature does not change, which is the reason that “old-fashioned” values are still applicable.

      An excellent book on the subject, probably the best I’ve read, is “A Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell.

    21. Joseph Steinberg Says:

      Response to Chris at #12:

      I think American ideology stopped really being “Founder’s Thought” when Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address and the Radical Republicans passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. And then, TR (“liberal Republican”) and FDR (Little TR, but my Daddy was a Democrat”) just killed any ideological difference between the Democrats and Republicans. It took Buckley, Russell Kirk, Whittaker Chambers, and Leo Strauss to resurrect conservatism on something other than narrow political pragmatism. I tend to think of the Federalist Papers as an astringent, or defining the outer limits of American constitutional thought. But, Tocqueville and JS Mill have rendered Founder’s Thought a quaint heirloom.

      I would add on my last comment, that conservatives instinctively dread reform, of immigration, education, pensions, and healthcare, but also, like corporate Dems, fear the loss of subsidies and agricultural programs. Liberals just cut through all those reservations and think of utility. That’s why corporations have quietly favored moderate reforms, but don’t want to stir things up or ignite protest like the oil companies have done. It’s the new elitism: “anyone can climb (and only so fast), as long as we’re still on top.”

    22. Dr. Steven Taylor Says:

      In regards to that last point: I am not certain that it is Burkean to oppose reform or change–radical change, yes, but gradual and considered changed, no.

    23. Joseph Steinberg Says:

      And, the standard of governance is prudence for Burke, not utility itself. Facts are filtered through the experiences and situation of the legislator. For Bentham, the ulitilitarian calculus prompts action, and it’s the legislator’s job to implement those conclusions. Conservatives are much more comfortable with hedging reform with considerations based on interest, whether geographical or institutional, or theology. Historically, liberals have fought to overcome these, and to use that resistance to create a reform coalition. That was certainly the Rooseveltian strategy. Conservatives can’t see beyond their pockets and feet; liberals veer towards Laputa.

      Ideologically, now the conservatives and liberals have both mongrelized both political parties and fought each other to a standstill intellectually. There is no debate in America, just an exchange of talking points in a more or less entertaining manner. It’s more a question of form than substance. There are no pure conservatives or liberals, just patron saints, like Reagan, Friedman, or, indeed, FDR. No one is saying, “We need to do this because of x, y, and z. If you don’t understand this, you’re the problem! Progress is your and our only destiny!”. Or, “Don’t tinker with my (or God’s) America! Now (or, in the past) is the best we can be! God strike us dead, if we should fall any further!” Both political parties muddle these messages, play off constituencies, and seek a safe center.

      Being moderate and gradualist means moderates wittle down the extremes into less palatable monsters with solid precedents, not intellectual muddle. The extremes have consistency on their side. Moderates need results, or why bother? Just stand back, and let them at it!

      Moderate reform=temporary compromise

    24. Judy Davis Says:

      Liberal – Dumb
      and
      Conservative – Dumber

    25. V the K Says:

      Put in economic terms:

      Conservative: Free market capitalist
      Liberal: Socialist

      Put in moral terms:

      Conservative: Believes individual rights are inseparable from individual responsibilities
      Liberal: Believes in an all-powerful state whose primary duty is to spare the individual the consequences of his actions.

    26. Don Hall Says:

      CONSERVATIVE — Reasonably well-versed in the English language. Has read the Constitution of the United States and understands the words mean what they say.

      LIBERAL — Reasonable well-versed in the English language. Views the words of the founding fathers as suggestions. Finds words therein written ‘between the lines,’ in the ‘penumbra’ of the intent of the framers. Very imaginative folks, as a general rule.

    27. John McLaughlin Says:

      To my way of thinking a Conservative believes in a strong national defense, low taxes, minimal government and personal responsibility.
      Liberals do not.


    blog advertising is good for you

    Visitors Since 2/15/03


    Blogroll
    Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics
    ---


    Advertisement

    Advertisement


    Powered by WordPress