A Hypothesis On Conservatives and Liberals

[Q Classic]

Moderates are weenies who can't be arsed to take a position. As they say in Texas, ain't nothin' in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. Which are you?

wrong-o. there are plenty of moderates like me who find that in some cases, it's better to have a sharply delimited position; but for the best practices of policy-making, you take a bit from everything.

there's no contradiction in believing abortion is morally outrageous and should never be condoned, but realizing that the way that the law stands right now, one cannot legislate in any way against it.

it's perfectly moderate to believe that the free market is best, but that there should be just enough regulation to ensure that the little man isn't always buggered by the big company man.

being moderate doesn't mean that you can't be arsed to take a position.

being moderate means that you're actually willing to listen to both sides of the argument, and try to find a common ground that will actually work.

[Kropotkin]

So you've gone from a one-dimensional (x-axis only) political spectrum to a two-dimensional (x- and y-axis), what else is new? Haven't we done these a million times already?

There has been plenty of political theorists that have contructed much more advanced models where the dimensions are so many that it's quite impossible to describe. Ie, more than three dimensions. Iirc, there was one with 16 dimensions or something like that.

[Japher]

Moderates are people who take positions the left doesnt like, yet still want to get the moral credit for opposing the right, which moral credit the left wants to monopolize.

There's no morals in politics!

we moderates think both of those groups are nuts anyway.

The Do Nothin's

[Arrian]

The Do Nothin's

No, the people who are more interested in doing than shouting at the "other side." Doing, however, usually involves compromise, which radicals and reactionaries alike despise.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
To make you hapy, Sloww, I will tell you what you are trying to say. Radicals and reactionaries are mirror images.

First of all, it's not to make me happy.
That's not likely to happen.

Radicals don't always react. They may in fact remain somewhat docile in acts, if not thoughts.
On the other extreme, what they see as "reaction" may actually be "proaction"; and either action need not occur solely from a Radical aspect.
Bush isn't a Radical, of any kind.
You may choose to disagree. That's your right.
I'm saying that a Conservative person is reacting to proactions of a set of Radicals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, Arrian is correct, the moderates are the most important people. They are the only ones who know how to compromise and get things done. Without them, nothing would really get passed except if there was some sort of violent revolt.

[Japher]

Compromise = sell-out.

Well, we can't execute criminals anymore but we can kill all the unborn babies we want!!!WooHooo...

Come on, why would some one vote for some one who is wishy-washy on their views. "I'll do my best until that becomes just to darn hard, and then I'll do what I'm able til I get whatever I'm dealt"... Moderates are wipping boys for the rest of us...

[SlowwHand]

Arrian is right?
You damned jackass!
I'm the one that all along has called himself a Moderate Independent.

Punk.

[Ben Kenobi]

Good ol' Slowwy, right on schedule.

That's an interesting point to make about moderates, that moderates are fundamentally conservative, in resisting change.

However I take fault with che's definition of progressive.

"Progressives are like liberals with spinal cords. Here you find the activists, socialists, social democrats."

There are also conservative activists, but you do not have a label for them. All you have are conservatives and reactionaries.

I think we need to work out some fundamental definitions of what is liberal and what is conservative before trying to discriminate between conservatives and liberals.

Now, conservatives believe that man is inherently bad, in that regardless of the society, human nature cannot be changed.

Liberals believe just the opposite, that with the proper society, one can change people's behavior. The only reason we see people do bad things is because of the society and not the person.

That's just for starters. I want to see what other people have to say about the fundamental distinctions between liberals and conservatives.

[Arrian]

Actually, Japher, if you really despise compromise, you shouldn't even bother voting.

First off, I'd be shocked if you or I could find a political candidate whos views/party platform exactly matched either of our beliefs. Therefore, merely casting a vote is a compromise of sorts - you pick the candidate closest to your position.

Second, all politicians must compromise, or nothing gets done. The compromise is often distasteful, sure, but that's what makes it so much easier to be uncompromising. Compromise is about picking your battles - giving this to get that. You have to make difficult choices.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Compromise = sell-out.

This view leads to nothing being done except civil wars .

Arrian is right?
You damned jackass!
I'm the one that all along has called himself a Moderate Independent.

But that'd require me to say you were right.

[Japher]

True.

I generally vote purely on economic issues, and care nothing of moral or humanitarian issues... I guess I compromise there.

[SlowwHand]

Involve yourself in business.
Do it without negotiation and/or compromise.
Good luck.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I would also submit, in answer to Che, that a Libertarian by necessity would fall somewhere near the Moderate label.

This is a clear sign your chart is very wrong.

But as Che predicted, this is just gonna get us Libertarians in a tizzy. But I've seen too damn many of these to care, and y'all have been presented the Nolan chart lots of times, so I'm just gonna save my breath. Or finger movements. Or... ya know.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: A Hypothesis On Conservatives and Liberals

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The spectrum of degrees involving liberal to conservative was being discussed within a thread, and the thought occured to me that the need for discussion required it's own separate and distinct thread.

Radical Liberals and Radical Conservatives, are so unknowingly close to each other, they're about to bump asses.
Let me tell you why.

Most people envision this spectum as linear, moving from Left to Right.
The concept that I present to you now, is much the same as early exploration marking the difference between a flat world, and a round world.

Liberal-------------Moderate-------------Conservative.

I don't think the increments and terminology used between either point and Moderate is that critical.
What's critical is the addition of Radical, which follows.

Rad Lib----Liberal-----Moderate----Consevative---Rad Con

Now, rather than in the linear example we see above, make it circular.
In this manner you'll see that the Radicals becomes adjoined.

I'll stop here and let the analysts analyze, and we can go from there.

What do you think? Am I making myself clear as mud, again?

So your hypothesis is that small government = big government?