The differences between Liberalism and Conservatism

Here are some quotes I found to be very helpful in explaining the differences between Liberalism and Conservatism:

Conservatism

“To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. Familiar relationships and loyalties will be preferred to the allure of more profitable attachments; to acquire and to enlarge will be less important than to keep, to cultivate and to enjoy; the grief of loss will be more acute than the excitement of novelty or promise. It is to be equal to one's own fortune, to live at the level of one's own means, to be content with the want of greater perfection which belongs alike to oneself and one's circumstances.” – Michael Oakeshott

Liberalism

“Liberalism is an attitude rather than a set of dogmas - an attitude that insists upon questioning all plausible and self-evident propositions, seeking not to reject them but to find out what evidence there is to support them rather than their possible alternatives.” – Morris Raphael Cohen

Difference

“What do we call conservative, and what do we call liberal, in daily life? A conservative explains behavior spiritually, and personalizes responsibility. In Aristotelian terms, the principle of motion is within us. A liberal, by contrast, explains behavior mechanically, and externalizes responsibility: the principle of motion is outside us. Thus, in the typical policy debate, a liberal makes excuses for the human agent, and a conservative places blame. The spark of the liberal argument -- He didn’t have the same opportunities you did -- meets the conservative conceptual firewall: Lots of people start poor, but still find ways to make it.” – Mark Riebling

But it is important to note the difference between the Liberalism and Conservatism of today with the original forms of it. Present day Liberalism, in the United States context, is similar to the Social Democratic movements developing from a combination of Classical Liberalism (capitalism) and Socialism. It is the middle ground between the two. Present day Conservatism, in the US-CA-UK context, is similar to Classical Liberalism mixed with a variant of Social, rather than national/cultural, Conservatism.

Margaret Thatcher explained it well: “The kind of Conservatism which he (Keith Joseph) and I...favoured would be best described as "liberal", in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr. Gladstone not of the latter day collectivists.” The ‘Conservatism’ of Thatcher is similar to the ‘Conservative’ warriors across the West who rose to power during the 1980s. It was to reject the Conservatism of the past 180+ years in favor of a Classical Liberal approach favoring markets over nation and individuals over community.

***My opinions below, feel free to ignore***

I consider myself a Conservative of the old, which is one who rejects the notions individualism, liberalism, modernity, and supposed ‘social progresses’. It has a heavy belief in natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism, classicism and high culture, and loyalty.

The one key difference between the Classical Liberalism masquerading as Conservatism and true Conservatism is the belief in defending Capitalism as some sort of established institution of society. One can be a true Conservative and a Capitalist but cannot be anywhere near laissez-faire capitalism and be a true Conservative. But it also requires one to think outside of a social democratic structure as well, where government does not micromanage society but instead hands the power over to families, communities, and established institutions such as the church. The role of the state is not rejected as evil either, the state can be a welcomed ally in confronting societal ills, but should know its place.

So I apologize this thread is skewed towards Conservatism, it is only that way because I am a Conservative. The part below the star signs *** is just me giving my take of things.

reply to post by Misoir


Two phony categories among many for people to neatly file themselves into that those behind the scenes may rule by division.

reply to post by Misoir


Conservatives try to hang on to the good old days even though the population, awareness and knowledge is expanding exponentially. Liberals know they can't.

Liberals might like to do that but it is impossible unless you drop off the planet and so they embrace the future with wide eyes and great expectations. Like Columbus or Magellan or any modern spaceman.

Why is it so called "conservatives" promote the space program more than liberals, who are first to say..fix this planet before we rush headlong into the cosmos? Who has the quaint old fashioned idea there?

And why is it liberals want to do away with World War, a relatively new concept with only 2 so far, and yet the Conservatives seem to have liked the last two world wars so much they are planning a third.

What a history we will have IF our evolutionary chart goes any farther...
And here is where homo sapiens had 3 world wars. Can you imagine... a war on the world?

The differences can be summed up rather neatly, and in my own words.

Conservativism is the believe that your own wants and needs are paramount and that society should be bent around whatever you personally think is best. "I don't like this so it needs to be outlawed. I want that, so we need to change it to the way I like it. And screw anyone who gets hurt in the process. I'm here to make a better world for me, and me alone"

Liberalism is the realization that individuals are members of a greater society, a network of people that need to see to each others' well being for their own. "Yes, I may want this, but if I get it, will it hurt this person over there, and if so, will that mess up the whole thing? No, I don't like that, but what are the repercussions to the bigger picture if I get it thrown away?"

And in the media it goes
Liberal: welfare, welfare, welfare; equal rights, equal rights, equal rights

Conservative: responsibility, responsiblity, responsibility; moral values, moral values, moral values

on another note, i think those who are conservative are by default more closed minded in a changing world. The concern against the liberal is the slippery slope for change and the concern against conservatives is that unfairness is outdated.

my opinion is that those identifications become more complex over the years, only because people will identify themselves as both circumstantially and favor situational thinking over ideology.

Most of the progress the U.S. has made in the past 100 years or so is because there were MODERATES in both parties willing to concede on certain issues and policies.

There are NO moderates in politics today.

Lieberman is a very close example of what a moderate should be,an what did the liberals in the Democratic party do to him?

Through him under the bus!

Ron Paul is a moderate Republican too.

Most Libertarians were either moderate Republicans or moderate Democrats at one time.

As both parties leadership when to the opposite extremes, the moderates just started their own separate party.

I am a moderate,I understand both sides beliefs but what needs to be done needs to be done in moderation.

You can lay outside for 15 minutes a day and in a week you have a nice tan,or you can lay outside for a hour and a half and get a bad sunburn.

The conservative way you can still go out and party with your friends and in a week every will notice your nice tan the liberal way you sit at home and are in pain for a day or two and then walk around looking burnt and then shed skin like a molting lizard.

My head is spinning after reading only a couple posts.
Its amazing how people try to define these things.
Liberal means something very different if Europe and America. Might be worth saying which version of liberal is being described.
Liberal - the word derives from Latin (liber) which means freedom. The European liberal believes in individual freedom and responsibility, the American one seems to want Gov to take care of things.

A large part of this definition problem comes from using words with indefinite meanings.
None of us really fit in these silly little predefined boxes anyway.

reply to post by IamJustanAmerican


Well said. Also, there seems to be more progress for it's own sake than what our society can handle... I say lets quit trying to repaint the car before we get engine working, we have many more immediate concerns that if not handled properly, will keep us from making any future progress.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


You are failing to separate ideology from philosophy. You are describing the ideological/political side of the two when I try and look past that ever changing landscape to the philosophical undertone of each movement. I do not believe in forcing through law unnecessary restrictions on other people such as banning gay marriage or abortion. Why? Because it should be left up to the people of a community to hold onto their values and beliefs, enforce it through personal means such as shunning others, rather than government locking you up or banning you from doing something.

Political conservatives rely too much on government to force others into doing things or banning them from doing other things. They love the state to force their morality on others rather than relying on families and communities to enforce moral codes. It is simply for the fact that they are lazy and are cafeteria Christians who can preach morality but when it comes to actually pushing for that cause through a transformation of the self, they would give up. Become complacent and your values will die, you cannot just vote a way to uphold values you must actually get your butt of the couch and do it yourself.

Just my opinion…

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

You are failing to separate ideology from philosophy. You are describing the ideological/political side of the two when I try and look past that ever changing landscape to the philosophical undertone of each movement. I do not believe in forcing through law unnecessary restrictions on other people such as banning gay marriage or abortion. Why? Because it should be left up to the people of a community to hold onto their values and beliefs, enforce it through personal means such as shunning others, rather than government locking you up or banning you from doing something.

Sigh. Is this going to become a weekly performance?

The point of philosophy is to teach one how to think, not what to think. Once you start thinking that the philosophy itself is the point, then you're admitting that you've failed the entire endeavor, and are basically just masturbating to how smart you think you are. You can drop names, you cna regurgitate paragraphs, but this doesn't make you intelligent, it just marks you as someone for whom independent, critical thought is a foreign and frightening thing.

Yes, I focus on the ideology and politics of the situation, because that's what's real. That's what's put into effect. That's what impacts people's lives. so while you're sitting in your overstuffed chair in your study, fondling yourself while thinking fondly of something Descartes once said, people like me are looking at real problems in the real world and trying to figure out how to address them.

For instance;

Political conservatives rely too much on government to force others into doing things or banning them from doing other things. They love the state to force their morality on others rather than relying on families and communities to enforce moral codes. It is simply for the fact that they are lazy and are cafeteria Christians who can preach morality but when it comes to actually pushing for that cause through a transformation of the self, they would give up. Become complacent and your values will die, you cannot just vote a way to uphold values you must actually get your butt of the couch and do it yourself.

Just my opinion…

Is there any practical difference between utilizing the apparatus of the state to force your morality on someone else, or using the apparatus of family and church? no, there' in fact not one iota of difference there. No matter what system is used, the reasons, the outcome, the effects are all the same. Party A is using System 1 to force their beliefs upon party B.

Your philosophy holds that there is a massive chasm of difference because of the particulars of the system used. From this it also says that one system is bad, and the other is good. it never considers that the entire endeavor is itself bad. it gets stuck on one niggling, meaningless philosophical point; the particular tool used for the oppression, rather than the oppression itself.

End result, you look like you achieved your purity of thought by injecting clorox into your brain stem.

reply to post by IamJustanAmerican


A moderate, huh?

Explain to me how one can have a "moderate" position on war. What's your moderated solution to alleviating poverty? How do we moderately solve the gigantic flaws that have developed in our electoral system?

See, the problem with "moderation" is that it's basically half-assing everything. If you're going to have a position, then have a position.

All I can still think of despite several explanations and typical DC political games on the parties is summed up as below.

Liberal: Does not use KY Jelly to screw the Public.
Conservative: Uses KY Jelly to screw the Public.

What's the point of this post?

Your making no statements other than describing the difference between two words?

I fail to see why this deserves a thread.

I'd just like to post something from someone I admire deeply, which I've found to be very true time and time again.

Liberalization is the transformation of mankind into cattle.

- F. Nietzsche

Over time, textbook after textbook has been written on this topic. I can pretty accurately predict they will also be written in the future.

But, as a simple plain old 'guy on the street', my layman's definitions are quite simple:

Liberals believe that there has to be an overpaid government led bureaucracy to help find out how much of your money they can siphon off to the rich folk who ensure they get elected. They like to give some of your money to the really poor folk too so you get all warm and fuzzy while being robbed blind.

Conservatives believe that they can figure out how much of their money they can siphon off to the rich folk who ensure they get elected without the help of some overpaid government led bureaucracy. They don't give a rats-ass about the really poor people, so they feel justified by taking a bit less out of your wallet so you feel a bit better off than under a Liberal-led government until you become one of those really poor people they don't give a rats-ass about.


The end result is the same . . . both find ways to suck the money out of your wallet under the guise of leading you to the promised land of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The only thing they don’t tell you, it’s their happiness not yours.

reply to post by Misoir

Lots of people start poor, but still find ways to make it.” – Mark Riebling

What excactly is 'Lots'. Can we get an excact # so we can see excactly how many start off poor and end up rich. It was my impression that it wasn't 'Lots' but very few poor people that end up rich.

Is Mark implying that we can ALL (the Poor) get rich if we 'find ways to make it'? Isn't this the Utopia the Conservatives don't consider? This guy is a liberal spy, an insurgent. He argues we can have a Utopic society and with the same breath talks this conservative conceptual firewall bull crap.

If we ALL have the same opportunity, luck and determination to be rich, we all would be. Welcome to Utopia.

BTW, I beleive this can happen, not in my lifetime. Nor my chidren's, or my childrens children. Maybe hundreds of years from now. For now we must accept the fact, the reality of the situation is, not everyone can be rich. Not everyone can be Micheal Jordan, or Beyonce, or Trump or Truman. We all have our place. Give us ALL dignity and RESPECT in our place. Freedom, and fairness. Some actually CHOOSE not to be rich. To some, TIME spent with their family is worth more that personal riches.

And our society needs people to work at wal mart, or the local machine shop. If all of them were rich, who would cut the grass?

reply to post by Misoir

where government does not micromanage society but instead hands the power over to families, communities, and established institutions such as the church

Your kidding right. Hand over power to the Church? I think that was tried and didn't come out to well (search : Inquisition). In fact, that may be one of the causes of the American Revolution, and the reason separtion of Church and State is in the Constitution, but I could be wrong.

But, I to have disagree with handing power over to the Church. That would be a path I would FIGHT and DIE to prevent.