A question about the differences between conservatives and liberals

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dauphin
You missed my sarcasm.

But there was no smiley to inform me!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It makes the thread title a bit easier to discern. I mean, could you imagine a title of "A question about the differences between social conservatives, social liberals, economic conservatives, and economic liberals"?

I don't even think that'd fit.

What that shows is a problem with the thread, not with any attempt to make clear that human beings are defined by more than one idea in their heads.

[molly bloom]

I find that more liberals than conservatives temper their behaviour and language based upon fear of reprisal, from the law or otherwise

It might help if you could give the contexts in which these 'inactions' took (or didn't take) place.

I don't temper my language necessarily, but I am aware from personal experience that certain words are intended in certain situations, to cause offence or intimidate people.

Certainly when I marched in opposition to the Conservative government's Clause 28 proposals, I was aware that of the two positions, mine was decidedly more liberal.


And when I had neo-Nazi skinheads describing me as a 'n*gger lover' in Coventry in the late 70s I couldn't help noticing that this was not a particularly liberal attitude and was rather an intemperate use of language.

But then as there had been two recent murders of Asians in Coventry by white racists, I felt that any offence I might take would have been overshadowed by the injured feelings of the dead men's relatives and friends...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
What that shows is a problem with the thread, not with any attempt to make clear that human beings are defined by more than one idea in their heads.

I have a feeling that most people knew what he was talking about and all this in the last few posts is mere pedantry.

I mean, we basically have our own divisions of Poly members on the spectrum and don't need to go into backbreaking explanations of where the general consensus on this site has people fall.

[GePap]

If anyone has any intention of actually engaging the thread topic, the thing to do is have an arguement about the meaning of honor, and through this debate the differences between viewpoints would come out, and then we could perhaps see a pattern emerge between the views of those posters we label "liberal" and those we label "conservative."

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Actually he was responding to a charge against liberals by making a charge against conservatives... two wrongs making right and all that.

Given the lack of specific examples of liberal 'dishonour' from the thread's begetter, I simply felt that a few resurrections from the dustbin of history were called for.

Was Bill Clinton 'dishonourable' with regard Monica Lewinsky ?

Yes, in my opinion.


But then so was Reagan with regard Nicaragua, and the consequences were a tad more serious, especially for dead Nicaraguan teachers and farmers.

In any case, honour codes are usually found in socially conservative cultures or societies or networks- pre-Islamic Arabia, southern Italy, the Balkans, the S.S., mediaeval bands of knights- and the code's precepts don't usually extend to behaving honourably to people considered beyond the pale- witness the Christian crusaders' actions when recapturing Jerusalem or on their way through the Balkans- or the Mafia's killing of innocent bystanders and their distribution of drugs and control of prostitution and corruption of national and local government in Italy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
If anyone has any intention of actually engaging the thread topic, the thing to do is have an arguement about the meaning of honor, and through this debate the differences between viewpoints would come out, and then we could perhaps see a pattern emerge between the views of those posters we label "liberal" and those we label "conservative."

Which we were and had Sprayber even backing down a bit.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Yes, Mugabe as a Socialist, just like Denis Healey, Helmut Brandt, Francois Mitterand and Keir Hardie.

What I wonder might be the major flaws in such a definition ?

Mugabe was originally socialist, but basically he's been "sharing the wealth" with his army. That makes him about as socialist as William the Conquerer, Atilla the Hun, Genhis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, etc., etc.

It's probably best to think about liberal vs conservative in the context of a given society at its current state. Liberal at one place or time may be conservative at another place and time.

Oh, and I certainly wouldn't ascribe "honor" as being a particular attribute of conservatism.

[Ben Kenobi]

You could do it :

Discuss the differences between socon/solib/econ/elib

[molly bloom]

Mugabe was originally socialist.

More of a revolutionary Marxist in his pre-power holding days, but then he'd also had the benefit of a missionary education.

The problem with using Socialist to describe Mugabe is that it tars every other decent law-abiding non-tyrannical non-genocidal Socialist with the same brush- and outside the U.S., socialist is not yet a pejorative term.


Interestingly enough one of the major innovators with respect to the welfare state in Europe was that well-known liberal and socialist, Chancellor Bismarck.

Who of course being a Junker would have been familiar with an honour code too.

[RGBVideo]

Did molly bloom seriously classify Robert Mugabe as a conservative? ZANU-PF is nominally socialist, and definitely populist.

Not to mention that pretty much every self-described liberal was praising him back in 1980 in the same way how Nelson Mandela is praised today...

But this would require concentrated intellectual commitment to honesty in reviewing history. As opposed to reviewing history in order to have it support pre-defined political cliques, which is all too common these days.