A Hypothesis On Conservatives and Liberals

[Berzerker]

I'm not quite sure I agree with you on this . . . . .

See, now there's a "moderate".

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting, Berz.

So how would one indicate something like foreign policy inside your grid?

For example, how would one accomodate someone who happened to fall in both the fiscal and socially conservative vectors, yet in terms of foreign policy was quite far to the left?

I think that's an important part of the political spectrum, since there are those who are both liberal and conservative who would support differing foreign policies.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

So how would one indicate something like foreign policy inside your grid?

For example, how would one accomodate someone who happened to fall in both the fiscal and socially conservative vectors, yet in terms of foreign policy was quite far to the left?

I think that's an important part of the political spectrum, since there are those who are both liberal and conservative who would support differing foreign policies.

First, I'd argue fiscal and social conservatism are incompatable since social conservatives need a big government to enforce their social agenda. Not as big as the welfare statists, but much bigger that the economic conservatives and libertarians. Now, a left wing foreign policy would be prone to trade tariffs and interventionism - rather autocratic policies. Obviously all ideologies would fight wars when attacked, but the left would seek out or create (intentionally or not) enemies to attack. Regarding this aspect of foreign policy, we can see a division between more "traditional" conservatives and "neo-cons" - the former displays a reluctance to go abroad to fight "pre-emptive" wars while the latter looks for opportunities to expand their ideology or at a minimum, head off perceived threats and mold global politics to suit themselves.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Those civil wars wouldn't happen if the damn moderates would take a position.

*points to Columbia or 1917 Russia*

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

incompatable since social conservatives need a big government to enforce their social agenda.

I'm kind of discussing my own perspective here. I'm fiscally conservative in that I do not want my tax dollars spent on unnecessary social programs. Among these would be the current funding here in Canada for abortion services.

I would not support the use of my dollars to fund a particular church or church events, as I feel churches work best apart from the state.

There is more than one way to push a socially conservative agenda, one is through education, not funded by the government, but taken up by private organisations. In this sense, a socially conservative agenda can be advanced without increasing the size of the state.

Now, a left wing foreign policy would be prone to trade tariffs and interventionism - rather autocratic policies.

Yeah, I'm a free trader, so I fall on a conservative platform.

the former displays a reluctance to go abroad to fight "pre-emptive" wars

Interesting. I wonder how a pacifist position could possibly fit into a conservative position? Would this correspond more with the isolationism experienced in the US before the first world war?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only way a linear spectrum can reflect reality is if totalitarianism is at one end and anarchism is at the other.

You should know the reason a linear spectrum of left and right arose in the first place. The French General Assembly had socialists (radicals) sit on the left and monarchists (conservatives) sit on the right. Those that wanted a change to tradition (by revolution if necessary) were leftists and those pro-tradition were rightists ever since then.

And THAT is the linear spectrum of left-right, based on where people are in relation to tradition.

[Berzerker]

*points to Columbia or 1917 Russia*

Places where the moderates...umm...remained moderate while the radicals or extremists had a hissy fit. Consider the American Revolution and Civil War - during the first the country was roughly divided into thirds with one part wanting the rebellion, another third remaining loyal to the crown, and the last third being "moderate". If the moderates took a position, the rebellion would gave quickly failed or succeeded. The Civil War could have been avoided if the moderates took sides. If the moderates, especially in the South, took a stand with the North, the secessionist movement may not have gotten off the ground, and if the moderates on both sides took up the South's cause, Lincoln may not have tried to suppress the movement.

Ben -

There is more than one way to push a socially conservative agenda, one is through education, not funded by the government, but taken up by private organisations. In this sense, a socially conservative agenda can be advanced without increasing the size of the state.

And that is the difference between America's attempts at "temperance". In the 1820's the USA had a very big alcohol problem, but instead of demanding alcohol prohibition, the social (religious) conservatives used persuasion to decrease consumption and their effort was met with great success. The second time around, the social conservatives sought government intervention and their attempt at "temperance" was a disaster and finally repealed. Unfortunately, social conservatism will try to involve government now as a first resort except when the Constitution just cannot be ignored. If there's any way to circumvent the Constitution, liberals and social conservatives will find a way...

Interesting. I wonder how a pacifist position could possibly fit into a conservative position? Would this correspond more with the isolationism experienced in the US before the first world war?

I wouldn't call it "pacifism", just, as you point out, "isolationism".
There's a big difference... But yes, before the world wars the US was quite "isolationist" and that was the tradition begun by the Founding Fathers who sought to break out of the European tradition of monarchies and their constant wars.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

You should know the reason a linear spectrum of left and right arose in the first place. The French General Assembly had socialists (radicals) sit on the left and monarchists (conservatives) sit on the right. Those that wanted a change to tradition (by revolution if necessary) were leftists and those pro-tradition were rightists ever since then.

And THAT is the linear spectrum of left-right, based on where people are in relation to tradition.

Yes, but where people sat in the French assembly has little to do with today's reality. For example, I doubt drug prohibition even existed under the French monarchy and was a break with the tradition of freedom in this country. So, were the prohibitionists left wing and their opponents right wing? And now that prohibition has been ongoing, are the opponents of prohibition left wing and supporters right wing? The linear spectrum makes no sense when left and right change places so easily. Btw, I can think of only 1 member of Congress who opposes drug prohibition and he's a very conservative Republican. Does that mean there are no left wingers in Congress?

[TheStinger]

Interesting that free trade is considered a conservative position. In the 19th century the Tory party in the UK( the forerunner to the conservatives) opposed free trade and the Whigs/liberals were in favour of it. Of course Liberal in the UK does have a slightly different meaning to that in the US as it mainly stresses personal freedom.

Liberals in the UK have tended to be left of the Conservative party, but have until recently not been in favour of big government or socialist policies.( there is an active debate in the Lib Dems at the moment about what their economic policies should be).

[Berzerker]

Liberalism in 19th and 18th century America was more libertarian/conservative. During the mid to latter half of the 20th century many socialists and moderate socialists adopted the liberal label as socialism became taboo. Now that the term liberal has been linked backed to socialism more of them are calling themselves "progressive". I guess names don't matter if you keep getting your ideas adopted by those claiming to be conservative.

There are at least two brands of conservativism, one is for economic conservatism - free traders - and the other is more protectionist and tends to be socially conservative.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
This thread is abomination to politcal science

Best thread ever then.

[Q Classic]

if you go back to it, those philosophers and early political scientists that are called english liberals truly seem to be more libertarian than liberal.

[ricketyclik]

Here's another model, although I do agree with the circle. This one could be extrapolated to a sphere using the same logic. It has a (somewhat loaded and over-simplified) quetionaire to position yourself on it...

https://www.politicalcompass.org

[chequita guevara]

The problem with the libertarian grid is that their definition of economic freedom is Orwellian in nature.

Slavery is freedom! Freedom is slavery!

[David Floyd]

The problem with the libertarian grid is that their definition of economic freedom is Orwellian in nature.

No, the Libertarian use of the word "freedom" is probably the only usage which correctly captures the definition and meaning of the word.