Liberalism And Conservatism

[Elixir]

I didn't and don't argue that. So I don't need to read the rest of your post.

Any other comments?

Yeah they’re in the rest of the post.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Something that a lot of liberals today struggle with accepting is that unless the liberal nations have a lot more guns than the conservative countries, all the liberal reforms and personal freedoms will go away, and we'll go back to nobles (ie the maffia in castles) dividing up the planet between them.

What keeps the world free and liberal isn't lofty ideals and a big bleeding heart, it's cold steel, raw power and weapons.

Again 'liberals' as you use the term is not liberalism.


In the USA we have a liberal democratic republic. In that system there are thosee called 'liberals' and 'conservatives'.

Within both are subcategories. That would be another thread.

If yu want to rant I can not stop it. The question is the durbity of post WWII western liberlism.

I think it is liberalism. In the west our conservatives are liberal. They're just more conservative than the western liberals. They're still liberal.

And both the western conservatives and liberals can both lose our freedoms if we're not careful.

 

[Playball40]

By fiscally conservative I mean there are limits on government s[ending. That is true of capitalist, socialist, or communist. There is als economics.

Which is why I think people turning to socialism see it a a kind of panacea. Which it is not.


When Bernie Sanders would say something should be 'free' it is not really free. Somebody has to produce and support it. and be compensated.

Washington state and Seattle chronically have large budget shortfalls. Yet continue to expand government and increase social spending.

America from the start was a great merriment in liberall decency. Self rule by the people. It spears to be failing.

But "free" healthcare and college is ultimately a BOON/Net Gain for society and economics in general. I would gladly pay MORE in taxes for both programs. What I do NOT want to continue doing is paying my taxes so the elite can get richer (Trump and his cronies) or to wage stupid wars or support countries that wage stupid wars. You can be progressive and fiscally conservative - It just depends on WHAT the government is spending money on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Something that a lot of liberals today struggle with accepting is that unless the liberal nations have a lot more guns than the conservative countries, all the liberal reforms and personal freedoms will go away, and we'll go back to nobles (ie the maffia in castles) dividing up the planet between them.

What keeps the world free and liberal isn't lofty ideals and a big bleeding heart, it's cold steel, raw power and weapons.

Again 'liberals' as you use the term is not liberalism.


In the USA we have a liberal democratic republic. In that system there are thosee called 'liberals' and 'conservatives'.

Within both are subcategories. That would be another thread.

If yu want to rant I can not stop it. The question is the durbity of post WWII western liberlism.

I think it is liberalism. In the west our conservatives are liberal. They're just more conservative than the western liberals. They're still liberal.

And both the western conservatives and liberals can both lose our freedoms if we're not careful.

Like I said, nothing but noise.

 

[Tigers!]

I don't think anyone voted FOR Trump. What Trump has going for him is that he's rich enough to survive the rest of the political and media elite turning on him. What got Trump elected was the fact that he's anything other than the old elites. People are so sick at being talked down to by a slick and slimey politician. They'd rather have an idiot whose at least honest about being a lying scumbag. They didn't for for Trump. They voted AGAINST all the others.

In Australia our version of Trump, Farage is called Pauline Hanson.
She is riding quite high in the polls (but may have peaked). She is popular, not because of her policy offerings, such as they are, but because she is saying publicly that the duopoly of Labour/Coalition is not working (sound familiar?) and is only concerned with themselves and the coteries.
There is no other way currently in Australia to publicly denounce the duopoly.
The commentators (who benefit from the current duopoly) cannot understand why she is popular. She is popular because she is not 'them'.
It is as simple as that. The mug voter has had enough.
It a protest against the incumbents, the 'system' not necessarily a vote for her. And ditto for Farage, AfD, Le Pen etc.

 

[Emily Lake]

To me, the problem with "liberalism" is it is just a word. Yet, it seems to control conversations in its own right without any discussion of policy or means and methods to manage anything. Labels control the conversation more than the actual subject, where people bog down into neo-liberalism, old fashioned liberalism, what may or may not be liberalism today. So much noise! Then there is the issue of right-wing / left-wing populism being conflated with conservatism and liberalism, respectively, making things even more muddled.

To me liberalism is the scientific method of living. It asks of everything, 'Is that really a good idea?' Where as conservativism sticks with inertia, what is believed to be proven and what is traditional. What matters most is to understand that neither of these is a cheat sheet to truth and what helps result in a better functioning society. Worse yet, the better option could also change over time, because societies, values, needs change over time. Liberalism and conservatism should be tools used in thinking and developing policy, not religions.

More and more, I really don't think it's a liberal-conservative axis. I really think it's liberal-authoritarian, and it's progressive-conservative.

Liberalisms asks "Is that really a good idea?" Authoritarianism says "This is the right idea".
Progessivism says "Lets do it all right now!" Conservativism says "How about we start with a small bit and see if it works?"

I'm pretty sure I'm a liberal conservative.

 

[bilby]

I don't think anyone voted FOR Trump. What Trump has going for him is that he's rich enough to survive the rest of the political and media elite turning on him. What got Trump elected was the fact that he's anything other than the old elites. People are so sick at being talked down to by a slick and slimey politician. They'd rather have an idiot whose at least honest about being a lying scumbag. They didn't for for Trump. They voted AGAINST all the others.

In Australia our version of Trump, Farage is called Pauline Hanson.
She is riding quite high in the polls (but may have peaked). She is popular, not because of her policy offerings, such as they are, but because she is saying publicly that the duopoly of Labour/Coalition is not working (sound familiar?) and is only concerned with themselves and the coteries.
There is no other way currently in Australia to publicly denounce the duopoly.
The commentators (who benefit from the current duopoly) cannot understand why she is popular. She is popular because she is not 'them'.
It is as simple as that. The mug voter has had enough.
It a protest against the incumbents, the 'system' not necessarily a vote for her. And ditto for Farage, AfD, Le Pen etc.

I think this is a good reason to have RON (Re-Open Nominations) on every ballot. If RON wins, the election is done over, with none of the candidates on the original ballot (or any preceeding ballots, if RON wins more than one round) permitted to stand.

Of course this risks a seat or elected position remaining vacant for a long time, but it's far from clear to me that that's a worse outcome than the grudging election of a candidate just because the voters hate all the others even more.

It also means that candidates who run unopposed are still required to get the support of the voters, and are not certain to get the job even if everyone hates them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a fun one... another common blind spot among liberals. Liberalism is western colonialism and western cultural imperialism. These spread over the world through the barrel of a gun.

Liberalism is not natural or our natural state. We won't all slide into liberalism if the baddies are all given big hugs. Liberalism is a pretty unlikely movement that came out of the European enlightenment, and we're super super lucky that it came together with capitalism and industrialisation. It has only ever happened once in one place in all of world history.

The current liberal world order ONLY exists because the west are still economically dominant. Considering how the world looks now, the moment the west stops being economically dominant liberalism is gone. All those rights we've fought for will all just disappear. *pooof*

Liberal democracies are organised so the armies are subordinate to the parliaments. Without the parliaments having that control over the army, it's over. And whatever country has the biggest army wins, and gets to dictate what values will be predominant in the world.

Anyway... it's always funny with liberal universities studying post colonial studies. That's an oxymoron.