Conservative Verus Liberal

Steven Taylor posed a question: ”what is your definition of “conservative” and “liberal” in the American political context?”

I was going to write a comment there, first inclined toward the traditional definitions, then thinking it made more sense to write what they have become, perhaps with snarky overtones.  Then I decided to make it a post, since I haven’t offended everyone lately.

Here it is, then, conservative versus liberal…

Conservative

Only believes in whatever parts or interpretations of the Constitution he supports.  Which is to say, few of them, and mostly only if they seem to benefit him and confound others.

Generally wants to control your body and interpersonal dealings.

Thinks you’re too stupid to decide how to run your own life and should make those decisions for you.

Is willing to leave you some of your money.

Gladly gives religious fanatics excess influence in the name of enhancing his own power.

All your privacy are belong to us.

Often believes in strong national defense and selected foreign adventurism in the name of spreading freedom and getting them before they can get us.

“Freedom” means a government with a passable resemblence to our own, with the people in power exercising said power more like our politicians so it doesn’t look as squicky as when, say, Saddam or the Taliban do it.

“Them” includes but is not limited to the wrong brand of relgious fanatics.

Grudgingly believes you should be allowed to have guns without total restriction or regulation, as long as the government continues to have bigger ones and can keep you in your place, or as long as liberals are in control.

Liberal

Only believes in whatever parts or interpretations of the Constitution he supports.  Which is to say, few of them, and mostly only if they seem to benefit him and confound others.

Make soothing noises, yet would still prefer mostly to control your body and interpersonal dealings.

Thinks you’re too stupid to decide how to run your own life and should make those decisions for you.  Sometimes obfuscates this more successfully than his counterparts.

Prefers to leave you none of your money, unless it was funneled to you through an entitlement program designed to enhance his power.

Sometimes gives religious fanatics lip service in the name of not eroding his own power.

Most of your privacy are belong to us.

Seldom believes in strong national defense, but selected foreign adventurism is fine if it’s “for the children.”

“Freedom” is a word we haven’t stricken from the history books yet, because it remains useful in a “war is peace” sort of way.

“Them” includes libertarians, who must be discredited by lumping them in with conservatives or worse.

Seldom believes you should be allowed to have guns without total restriction or regulation, regardless of whether the government continues to have bigger ones and can keep you in your place, even when liberals aren’t in control.

1. And by conservative, you mean conservative politicians, right? Because that’s not me.

   Posted by sarahk  on  07/17  at  02:51 PM  from  south of hell

2. A possibly-relevant quote from R. A. Lafferty: “[T]he opposite of radical is superficial, the opposite of liberal is stingy; the opposite of conservative is destructive.”

   Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger  on  07/21  at  09:41 PM  from  The People's Republic of Nassau County

3. "the opposite of conservative is destructive.”

   Hmm, at first glance I objected to this. It seems a conservative person would rather work backwards and conserve the old, traditional ways that have worked SO well for centuries now, so why not for more centuries to come? But the opposite being destructive - it’s a bit harsh, no?

   But it is correct isn’t it? If you are not a conservative, you may be working to destroy these old, great ways, that have worked SO well - for SOME! The conservative then, does not take into consideration that not all people are the same, it obviously doesn’t work well for everybody if there are people around wanting to change things. They are not very considerate and inclusive then? They also don’t consider that it may actually benefit everybody (them included) to change things sometimes.

   So the opposite is destructive - it attempts to break down these old, perhaps rusty, ways, and replace them with new ones.

   I, personally, quite like being destructive in that case. But I think a replacement plan for improvement is a necessity to have if I were to act on this destructive streak of mine (take note all other destructive people).

   And perhaps I could be considered inconsiderate and non-inclusive (or exclusive), but if my improvements (changes) do not inflict on others is it still inconsiderate?

   Hmmm..... no, I still think the conservativism can be overcome with therapy a lot of the time. They are probably only scared of change, and we all are to a certain degree I would propose. If we could only hold hands in peace in this big and scary world, be accepting of each others funny habits and refrain from butting in on business that is none of ours - perhaps I would be able to stay away from speculating some more.

   Posted by  on  04/13  at  12:07 AM  from  Melbourne, Australia
Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main