Liberals Vs. Conservatives

Can someone present some data if they're going to say that group X and group Y correlate strongly in this thread?

The T wrote: Dean wrote: The T wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I've been a liberal ever since I took an interest in politics and nothing can change that.  You can insult me all you want.  I'm a grown up and I can take it. I do get peeved at the spoiled little rich kids on the forums and that ain't gonna change either. 1. Sometimes you don't act like a grown up good Slart.  2. Case in point. You still haven't provide any evidence for your "spoiled little rich kids" assumption. Nor have you explained why you make such assumption.  1. No one acts like a grown up good all the time  2. Conservatives have traditionally been drawn from the ranks of the middle and upper classes, (even in an egailtarian classless society class exists - there are those who are born into privilage and those who are not in every country in the world), this is not something you can deny even if you can produce a list of poor people who are conservatives or rich people who are liberal or socialist - if you are born rich the chances of you being a Conservative are far higher than if you were born poor - if you were born rich the chances of you having a better education are far higher than if you were born poor - if you were born rich the chances of you having a well paid job are far higher than if you were born poor - if you were born rich or poor the chances are you will have a political outlook similar to your socioeconomic peers. Those that wish to conserve the status quo are often those that have something to preserve. Generalisations and stereotypes are crude caricatures, but that is not to say there isn't some grain of truth in the exaggerated and oversimplified characteristics - the point of a caricature is to highlight a characteristic of the subject beyond the point of absurdity, just as you all do with Liberals, just as I do by deliberately misspelling Librarians (stereotype caricature: book people). And to kind of answer to this new and improved Slart , Llama says it correctly: I think the terms adopt a different meaning outside of the US. I have long been an enemy of how the word "liberal", tied to defender of markets outside of America, has been made to mean exactly the opposite here. As for conservatives, more than someone who wants to keep the status quo the American way of conservatism is to try to return to the roots of the constitution, limited government, and more economic freedom. Tied to the defense of economic freedom is the defense of personal freedoms even though some sectors are still advocates of strong control of certain things.  There's many other elements but I would say these are salient points.  Keep in mind that the "status quo" that conservatives want to defend, if we would agree with that, is quite different in the UK and the US. In the motherland society is a little more divided in classes with a top one being the monarchy. The "traditional" status quo to give it a name in the US of old ages was one of much less stratification and more of a sense of "equality" of natural rights, somewhat inherited from England but perfected here (though slavery was a stain on its record until it got abolished).

Actually the philosophies and goals are really not that different. What you seem to have in the USA is the situation we had 100 years ago with the Tories (Conservative/ Republican) and the Whigs (Liberal/Democrat) before the creation of the Labour movement (Socialist). In those times the Tories were predominantly the upper-classes and the Whigs were drawn from the professional classes and the nouveau-riche - poor people did not have the vote. That two party system is the same one adopted by the USA 100 years earlier and over the preceding years hadn't changed a great deal on either side of the pond - Don't forget that the early political parties were not egalitarian, this was pre Universal Suffrage, only the privileged could vote. The idea that the USA had less stratification and a (traditional) sense of equality of natural rights is "interesting" notion, but not too evident when looking at the history - the equality in question was not universal - it was equality for those eligible to vote - as the joke goes: some were more equal than others ... the 14th Amendment is "only" 1868 (and it took almost 100 years to enforce it) - how far back does the right want to go in returning to the roots of the constitution? Over here one of the aims of Maggie Thatcher's idea of Conservatism was a return to Victorian values (which satirically means pre-labour movement, rickets, dysentery, child-labour, hanging, the workhouse, transportation of criminals and the restoration of the idle classes) - the echoes of that are still present in Call-Me-Dave's rhetoric.

Oh, it's not "Liberal Vs. Conservatives" anymore, now it became a mixed free fight "Liberal Vs. Libertarian Vs. Conservatives"?
I can't wait for the Ecologists to show up!

Dean wrote: The T wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I've been a liberal ever since I took an interest in politics and nothing can change that.  You can insult me all you want.  I'm a grown up and I can take it. I do get peeved at the spoiled little rich kids on the forums and that ain't gonna change either. 1. Sometimes you don't act like a grown up good Slart.  2. Case in point. You still haven't provide any evidence for your "spoiled little rich kids" assumption. Nor have you explained why you make such assumption.  1. No one acts like a grown up good all the time  2. Conservatives have traditionally been drawn from the ranks of the middle and upper classes, (even in an egailtarian classless society class exists - there are those who are born into privilage and those who are not in every country in the world), this is not something you can deny even if you can produce a list of poor people who are conservatives or rich people who are liberal or socialist - if you are born rich the chances of you being a Conservative are far higher than if you were born poor - if you were born rich the chances of you having a better education are far higher than if you were born poor - if you were born rich the chances of you having a well paid job are far higher than if you were born poor - if you were born rich or poor the chances are you will have a political outlook similar to your socioeconomic peers. Those that wish to conserve the status quo are often those that have something to preserve. Generalisations and stereotypes are crude caricatures, but that is not to say there isn't some grain of truth in the exaggerated and oversimplified characteristics - the point of a caricature is to highlight a characteristic of the subject beyond the point of absurdity, just as you all do with Liberals, just as I do by deliberately misspelling Librarians (stereotype caricature: book people).

Edited by The T - August 01 2012 at 09:28

Dean wrote: Conservatives have traditionally been drawn from the ranks of the middle and upper classes, (even in an egailtarian classless society class exists - there are those who are born into privilage and those who are not in every country in the world), this is not something you can deny even if you can produce a list of poor people who are conservatives or rich people who are liberal or socialist - if you are born rich the chances of you being a Conservative are far higher than if you were born poor - if you were born rich the chances of you having a better education are far higher than if you were born poor I'm not convinced the first part of this is true, but if it is the second half would seem to undermine the initial claim Slarti made about intelligence. (I realize of course that education is not synonymous with intelligence, but they are related and those with a good education can make better use of their natural gifts.) if you were born rich the chances of you having a well paid job are far higher than if you were born poor - if you were born rich or poor the chances are you will have a political outlook similar to your socioeconomic peers. Those that wish to conserve the status quo are often those that have something to preserve. I would argue that most conservatives are not very big fans of the status quo, the status quo being enormous amounts of government spending, debt and unsustainable entitlements. I think the name "conservative" confuses a lot of people into thinking that conservatives don't want change. We just want change in a different direction than the liberals. I get the sense that these terms have slightly different meanings in British politics than in American, so that may be where the confusion lies. Generalisations and stereotypes are crude caricatures, but that is not to say there isn't some grain of truth in the exaggerated and oversimplified characteristics - the point of a caricature is to highlight a characteristic of the subject beyond the point of absurdity, just as you all do with Liberals, just as I do by deliberately misspelling Librarians (stereotype caricature: book people).

Slartibartfast wrote: I've been a liberal ever since I took an interest in politics and nothing can change that.  You can insult me all you want.  I'm a grown up and I can take it. I do get peeved at the spoiled little rich kids on the forums and that ain't gonna change either.

Slartibartfast wrote: Empathy deals with helping a person in trouble if you can.  The rest is I've got mine and screw you.

No. That's not what empathy is at all.

empathy |ˈempəθē|
noun
the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Empathy deals with helping a person in trouble if you can.  The rest is I've got mine and screw you.

I've been a liberal ever since I took an interest in politics and nothing can change that.  You can insult me all you want.  I'm a grown up and I can take it.

I do get peeved at the spoiled little rich kids on the forums and that ain't gonna change either.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 31 2012 at 19:43