Liberals vs Conservatives, Who's Smarter?

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Whack.

pff, thats being close minded.

[Agathon]

The thing that normal people have to realize is that US politics is insane.

[Barnabas]

I agree

But LS is indian, thats why it surprised me.

[Agathon]

In other news. I lol'ed at this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfIpnd7wN8o

[Wiglaf]

So where's that PHD from?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Barnabas
But LS is indian, thats why it surprised me.

India is ruled by teh type of people you described

[Barnabas]

Hindu democracy ?

[LordShiva]

At least they allow abortion

[Ben Kenobi]

Geez guys.

This thread ain't serious. I thought the idea was too appealing to pass up.

[Ben Kenobi]

Conservatism is amorphous and is really just a name for a collection of authoritarian prejudices. It's not a respectable political ideology because it isn't really an ideology in the accepted sense of the term.

Look at the root of the word and you will see why the conservatives have a problem with the concept of an ideology. Why should they adopt a framework that is hostile to their own ideas?

You do have some good points about the lack of cohesion on the conservative side, that is a natural consequence of lacking an ideology, you can't tell people to get with the program. However, there is such a thing as 'conservative thought', and there is a substantial body of work within political theory.

I don't agree with liberals on many things, but I don't think they are incapable of intelligent thought. It would be something if liberals were to extend the same courtesy.

[SlowwHand]

Don't hold your breath

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Look at the root of the word and you will see why the conservatives have a problem with the concept of an ideology. Why should they adopt a framework that is hostile to their own ideas?

I'm not using the term ideology in any sense other than a principle or set of coherent principles that provide a normative guide to action. Liberalism has this, with Rawls' formulation probably the best known example. We communists, although there are disagreements, have a basic set of principles we think provide a guide to political action.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that something that pretends to be a guide to political organization should have some principle or set of coherent principles that tell us what to do. That's pretty much what "a political philosophy" means.

If you were asked: "What is the conservative theory of justice?", what would you answer?

The only "framework" here is that of having a reason or reasons for doing something, with the further proviso that these not conflict with each other or common sense.

You do have some good points about the lack of cohesion on the conservative side, that is a natural consequence of lacking an ideology, you can't tell people to get with the program.

I'm suggesting that there isn't anything that could be justly called a program. In other words Conservatives don't have a political philosophy.

However, there is such a thing as 'conservative thought', and there is a substantial body of work within political theory.

But then it's just an equivocal name. Just like "bank" means various unrelated things in English, so "conservatism" doesn't really indicate any set of coherent ideas.

I don't agree with liberals on many things, but I don't think they are incapable of intelligent thought. It would be something if liberals were to extend the same courtesy.

I want to. I've been asking until I am blue in the face for conservatives to provide some principle or set of principles that they believe embodies their political philosophy. I've even provided examples of other political philosophies like Libertarianism, Egalitarianism, Utilitarianism, Liberalism and so on, all of which are coherent and well defined guides to policy.

In return I have got: "Conservatives believe in slowing down change".

I'm sorry, but that's the equal and oppositely ridiculous theory to a political ideology we could call "Fastism", where the goal is to change all our institutions as fast as possible. It doesn't matter what we change them into, just as long as we do it as fast and as radically as we can.

I mean come on.... you guys have to stand for something. I mean it's not all about keeping the darkies and homos down, is it?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not using the term ideology in any sense other than a principle or set of coherent principles that provide a normative guide to action.

Well it's a good question. However the term means much more then that.

Liberalism has this, with Rawls' formulation probably the best known example. We communists, although there are disagreements, have a basic set of principles we think provide a guide to political action.

Yes. The whole idea of an ideology started with the Enlightment, the idea that the principles were required to be formulated in a particular manner, like Rawls or the Manifesto. Inherent in the idea is that the term 'Communist' originates from the manifesto, there weren't communists before the manfesto or classical liberals before Rawls. Conservatives are like stones. We've always been here, therefore if someone were to write a manifesto defining conservativism, it would not be definitive. Who are the people we look up to? Burke is one, and I'm sure you know. Another is Adam Smith and Ricardo in economic theory. Deeper then that is a good question. The whole concept of natural law which Burke refers to comes from Aquinas and his formulation.

Conservatives, if they can be called that have a number of people who have important contributions, but to make an 'ideology' or a plan of action, is a foreign concept.

One of the conservative principles is pragmatism, if it works, they use it regardless of it's origins. If it doesn't work, it goes by the wayside and something else must be tried.

The same is true of the contrary if something is working it ought to remain so. If there is a problem, the solution must be effective in fixing the problem and not creating new ones. This is where the love of tradition comes in. Tradition is not arbitrary, if people did things one way they had a reason for doing so, even if that reason is not readily apparent.

Conservatives believe that human nature does not change. This is why Rousseau is not a conservative despite his skepticism of society and progress. They believe that society moulds itself to the peculiarities of man, and that regardless of the political plan or program, human nature will remain the same. Hobbes, despite his irreligiousity is a conservative.

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that something that pretends to be a guide to political organization should have some principle or set of coherent principles that tell us what to do. That's pretty much what "a political philosophy" means.

Conservatives take what they need from whomever. We don't have a conservative manifesto. If someone writes something we like, we pass it on to each other, and if it's really good people keep using it. We don't have a manifesto where you point out and say, hey, this is what it means to be a conservative.

If you were asked: "What is the conservative theory of justice?", what would you answer?

Natural Law under Thomas Aquinas is the foundation, but that's a much harder question to come up with all the contributors.

The only "framework" here is that of having a reason or reasons for doing something, with the further proviso that these not conflict with each other or common sense.

Well even that principle is contested. What is 'reason?' Should everything be explained or understood by reason?

Look at physics. Physicists believe that the world is undergirded by laws of nature which are compatible with each other and can be apprehended by reason. However, when you get to the nitty gritty, there are areas that don't fit, and don't seem to work together. Physicists believe that once we know more that they will work and make sense. Conservatives I think see that as a fundamental balance between reason and chaos for lack of a better world. It doesn't make sense, and nor should it. Reason has limitations, and not everything should fit together.

I'm suggesting that there isn't anything that could be justly called a program. In other words Conservatives don't have a political philosophy.

There isn't, and nor do Conservatives see that as a problem. The same thing with having an unwritten constitution. We believe, and have been proven right that to enumerate rights on a page, is to give men power over them, to change and alter them as time suits. The Framers were not conservative in this manner.

But then it's just an equivocal name. Just like "bank" means various unrelated things in English, so "conservatism" doesn't really indicate any set of coherent ideas.

Oh, I think you can label an idea as conservative. Does it fit together in a coherent program? No.

I want to. I've been asking until I am blue in the face for conservatives to provide some principle or set of principles that they believe embodies their political philosophy. I've even provided examples of other political philosophies like Libertarianism, Egalitarianism, Utilitarianism, Liberalism and so on, all of which are coherent and well defined guides to policy.

Yes, and conservativism doesn't play by the same rules as all the others. It rejects some of the core tenets that the others must all accept in order to be a 'coherent philosophy'.

I mean come on.... you guys have to stand for something. I mean it's not all about keeping the darkies and homos down, is it?

I actually like darkies.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Barnabas
If someone is a conservatice in social issues (against abortion, gay marriage etc) and a leftist in economic issues (likes state intervention in economy, free healthcare for everybody etc), what is he?

An idiot?

[Whaleboy]

I'm sure that conservatives are capable of intelligent thought, they just lack the ability to use it wisely.