What are you? Liberal? Conservative? Why?....

Please cite at least one of these studies. I'm curious.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31/business/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331

 

I'm a radical moderate. An old one.

 

Just mark the liberal block. If you are not marking the conservative block, you are a liberal. All those other choices are just different ways to say liberal.

 

You misinterpret, "As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles." Never does it say that conservatives are more compassionate. I just see it this way.

Far Right: The State will make You great
Right: I will make You great
Centre: We will make Us great
Left: We Will make You great
Far-Left: The State will make Us great


Once you understand that, its easy to see that everyone is equally compassionate, just in different ways. The Right is all about the individual, and the far-right supports an ultra-national state improving the life of the individual. The Left is all about the group, and the far-left supports having an ultra-national state improve the lives of the group as a whole, but not on an individual level. Personally, the far-right gives the most viable option because improving the lives of the individuals improves the lives of the group by extension. The far-left has the problem of trying to cater to everyone and not ending up catering to anyone. The left supports the group saving the individual left behind (all for one and one for all), so its clear as to why they would want to have government funded charities and such to make sure that the rich give to the less fortunate. The centre combines the two, saying that if everyone helps everyone without going extremely skewed to the group of the individual, we can make it work. The problem with this is the fact that you have to make claims for each individual circumstance. The right is all about individual wealth, and so it makes sense that rich conservatives usually build up private charity funds, as an act of saying, I made me great, so I can make you great. Everyone at the end of the day wants everyone to feel good. They just want to do it in different ways.

 

are you serious?

 

Im a Social and Economic Conservative Nationalist.

Thats not in your poll so i didnt vote.

 

I'm basically conservative except for the 'war on drugs' which has been a dismal, spectacular failure causing more crime and death than is really necessary. That being said, I am not a 1-issue voter either.

 

Oh yes. There are only liberals and conservatives. Liberal has begun to take on a derogatory feel, so liberals have had to hijack other names. They have been doing this for quite some time, here is a history of how they came to have all of these different names:

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Pay attention to #15 in that list, although all of them have been achieved.

 

Yep, conservatives donate more to charity, do more volunteer work and even donate more blood than liberals.

- - - Updated - - -

I find conservatives do both--give time and money--at a higher rate.

 

Its anecdotal at best. So, who knows?

But from my personal experience liberals do more volunteer work and conservatives write bigger checks.

Monetary donations are larger from conservative areas because many liberals feel that their contribution should be coming from their tax payments. Liberals tend to have less trust of religions and other charitable organizations, and greater trust of government agencies.

 

I'm an American Conservative. My views can be found in books like "In Defense of Freedom. A Conservative Credo By: Frank Meyer" and "The Constitution of Liberty. By F.A. Hayek".

I tend to have a lot of cross over with libertarians as well. Back in the day when I posted here all the time and the group option was in use I lead "The Conservative Movement" group which crossed over a lot with the Libertarians. I signed up here back in 2004, been coming back on and off since, but usually don't have to time to be here like I used to be.

I also notice there really isn't anyone around from back in the day though. Even my leftist friends who I used to debate with are gone. Times and people change though.

 

I really think you need to understand what the definition of a liberal is. Liberalism: the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights, to maximize freedom of choice, and tolerate all individuals.

Now let's go down the list, shall we?

Obviously, conservativism is not liberalism, you seem to grasp that, so I wont explain that.

Centrism: the holding or advocating of moderate political or other views - not necessarily liberal, although you can have a liberal centrist, centrism is not liberalism

Progressivism: the idea that that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition - once again, not liberalism, as per the definition.

Libertarianism: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens. - definitely not liberalism

Anarchism: belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. - they reject the State in its entirety, so they cant be liberal

Communism: a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. - Does not protect individual property ownership, and is thus not liberalism

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. - this is more like liberalism, but still not quite, because liberals do not necessarily wish to protect the group as much as they want to provide more for the individual within a group

Fascism (My own personal favorite Sieg Heil!): an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. - fascists are notoriously intolerant, which is the opposite of liberalism

Democratic Socialism:a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production - Yeah this is probably as close to true liberalism as you'll get, but once again, it is not quite liberalism because socialism emphasises the group more than the individual (one for all and all for one)


Now, for your number 15: this is what it says

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States

For one, this is anti-communist American propaganda (I'm anti commie but anti America so go me), and is strictly speaking about a communist takeover of the country, which, whether or not the claims have any credibility whatsoever, communism has been proven not to be liberalism as per the definitions. Secondly, the statement never says anything about this being a liberal thing. It specifically state one or both, so its fair to reason that this could be the Right wing side as well, implying that everything is just conservative, as per your argument. And it says capture the political parties; based upon your argument, I am going to assume that you are a conservative. Are you suggesting that communists have taken over the conservative party? or if you are referring to the fact that it has taken one party only, are you suggesting that the Democratic party is communist?

And thirdly, I just want to make sure you know where you are getting your information from. As per Jeff Rense's credibility , "Jeff Rense is an American radio talk-show host and conspiracy theorist." This man is neither a political scientist nor a politician, and has absolutely no authority on the subject.

Just some food for thought, cheers!

 

What really is being argued is what the terms mean to you. For example F.A. Hayek argued that he was a liberal. By that he meant it in the traditional 19th century style, or what you'll find in a text book. When giving a speech in America he said (paraphrasing of course not a direct quote although I can link the video to those who are interested.)

"American conservatives aren't really conservatives at all. Throughout the rest of the world what here is called conservative is called a liberal. The American Liberal here is known as a Democratic Socialist in most Western European nations. I am not surprised that so called liberal in America would want to take that label, but I am surprised the so called American conservative would let them get away with taking it!"

Frank Meyers talks about something similar in a speech given back in the 1960s.

American "conservatives" got the title back in the 50s. Many remnants of the old right didn't like it because they had always called themselves liberals, but by then they had completely lost control of the term. By then it was used largely to mean a supporter of the New Deal, because the New Deal Democrats stopped calling themselves progressives because that term had fallen out of favor. In the papers of the day the debate is largely between the word "conservative" (brought back mostly by a book written by Russel Kirk) and libertarians. Other words that were argued for was freedomist, whig, and individualist.

In fact Frank Meyer originally argued against "New Conservatism" because he thought it was to worried about traditionalism, but later changed his mind and was the driving force of bringing classical liberalism into the label, combining it with constitutionalism, and a love of western traditions and values.

Which has lead to American Conservatism being built on multiple different traditions, that are mostly linked together by the ideals promoted by the founding fathers.

The study of how ideas are formed is actually rather interesting. Of course it's difficult to talk globally about them because such phrases mean different things in different political contexts.

 

Based on the options provided I think democratic socialist comes closest for me. But actually I'd consider myself a monarchist, because I disapprove of democracy and pretty much all the orientations of it. Obviously there are those which are worse, but I don't think there is an appealing one because I don't trust the public to make the right choices even when it's in their own interest.

Too few are informed to make the right decisions, because the vast majority is uninformed and cares not, yet has the same vote.

 

The terms all mean communist, but most commies in america prefer to be categorized by different variations of the same thing. Most commies in this country prefer to be called progressives, liberals, and the other terms listed in the poll, but they are all commies. "Liberals" is a pretty easy way to package them all. Each of the terms in that poll represent various groups that commies infiltrated and took over when they fulfilled the 45 goals and took over America, so the original meanings of those terms don't mean much today. I am confident that college professors would dispute my position, but they are the product of communism themselves, thriving in the liberal cesspool that we call universities.

 

I follow no organized political entity, I'm a Democrat. Thanks to Will Rogers

 

`
`
I'm not a pigeon hole anything and have no use for the republicrat duopoly. Eclectic beliefs is a good way of describing me .

 

I used to consider myself to be a Socialist, but these days Liberal (in the American rather than the Australian sense) is probably closer to the mark. I've never really seen the need to attach a label to my beliefs though.

 

I do not go by the terms and in fact at times individuals can transcend all limits and do what is right. The history of the world and of the US indeed endorses this fact. Both sides have a lot of faultlines and fissures and both have crooks and use money to win elections and for this compromise with business entities to raise millions of dollars and sell dreams to the general public. overall I choose the Democrats since they are comparatively less culpable. People accuse them of being communistic. So what? I hate ruthless capitalists. You can read Charles Dickens’ novels to understand how England in the Nineteenth century was sucked by capitalist wolves.

 

Liberal INDEPENDENT.

 

A newbie comes on this thread and calls everybody dumb...AGAINST THE RULES!.... then is totally off topic...AGAINST THE RULES!

When I call someone dumb for this kind of crap, I get an infraction. More right wing bias.....

 

You mad, brah?

 

Not just anecdotal, studies bear out what I've said. Liberals tend to talk more about helping people, conservatives just help people.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/10/17/Who-s-More-Generous-Liberals-or-Conservatives
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/what-gives-44270


In all the volunteer organizations I work with, we are primarily conservatives, so my personal experience is opposite of yours.

 

I'm not sure you quite fully understand. Communism is defined as a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. Liberalism is defined as the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights, to maximize freedom of choice, and tolerate all individuals. These two definitions are very far from being the same thing. I think what you mean is that they are all leftist, which is somewhat true. I count centrism as just being wishy washy. Fascism is above the political spectrum. Liberals, commies, socialists, and what not are indeed leftists.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you are confusing talking about helping people with institutionalising government aid to the individual. Liberals tend to want the government to be the ones helping the individual. Conservatives tend to want to be the individual helping the other individual.