NationStates Jolt Archive

Someone asked me to define what conservatives and liberals are. Does this seem about right? I tried to be fair:

Average American Conservatives: people who believe that the moral values America was founded on should still apply today, with the exception of extremist ideals such as slavery, racism, and vigilantism. They believe in freedom for everyone in the world, and will usually support a good old fashioned military liberation effort. They believe that law-abiding citizens should have nothing to fear from anti-terrorism laws/acts. They seek to make America a good place to raise children, and also tend to be "pro-life." They believe no one should be given any special treatment because of race/sex/lifestyle/religion/name. Ideally, their view on economics is tax less and spend less (hence, conservative)... but that ideal fails most of the time because of their tendancy for war when in power.

Average American Liberals: People who believe in giving disadvantaged groups extra help to gain equality with the majority. They typically believe that while church and state need not be mutually exclusive, their separation needs to be more strongly upheld and enforced. They tend to believe that Judeo-Christian morals are either old-fashioned, out-of-date, or even restricting to freedom of choice. They similarly reject anti-terrorism laws/acts because of the inherent restriction of liberties and privacy, and they believe censorship of speech is also restricting their rights. They wish for everyone to have equal rights and a reasonable level of welfare. This includes children's welfare, and one major way that liberals differ from some conservatives and moderates is that they do not believe a healthy family must necessarily be a traditional one. Liberals typically do not support any wars that can be labeled unnecessary, out of respect for national sovereignty and a wish to not impose American ideals on those who don't wish to be invaded. Ideally, economically, they believe that to balance the budget, we must tax people (specifically the wealthy) more and give out government money more generously (hence, liberal). This is in alignment with the tenet that everyone deserves to have enough resources to make a living and be reasonably happy and healthy.
If these don't seem fair on either side, or if I left something out, please correct me. I want to get 2 near-perfect definitions.

NOTE: I said these were the average american beliefs from each group... I excluded extremists. (hippies/rednecks;marxists/fascists)

Someone asked me to define what conservatives and liberals are. Does this seem about right? I tried to be fair:

Average American Conservatives: people who believe that the moral values America was founded on should still apply today, with the exception of extremist ideals such as slavery, racism, and vigilantism. They believe in freedom for everyone in the world, and will usually support a good old fashioned military liberation effort. They believe that law-abiding citizens should have nothing to fear from anti-terrorism laws/acts. They seek to make America a good place to raise children, and also tend to be "pro-life."

Average aAmerican Liberals: people who believe that 'equality' involves bending laws to suit minority requests. They typically believe that church and state are currently not seperated enough, and need to be mutually exclusive. They tend to believe that Judaeo-Christian morals are either old-fashioned, out-of-date, or even restricting to freedom of choice. They similarly reject anti-terrorism laws/acts because of the inherent restriction of liberties and privacy, and they believe censorship of speech is also restricting their rights. While they do fight for children most of the time, they usually don't strive for the 'nuclear family' unit. Liberals typically do not support any wars that fight for democracy.

If these don't seem fair on either side, or if I left something out, please correct me. I want to get 2 near-perfect definitions.

NOTE: I said these were the average american beliefs from each group... I excluded extremists. (hippies/rednecks;marxists/fascists)

Yak, you're "liberal" view is very biased. E.g. "do not support wars fought for democracy" and "bending laws to suit minorities".

Yak, you're "liberal" view is very biased.So correct me! I ain't a liberal! I'm just calling it like I see it!

Anything specific?

Yak, you're "liberal" view is very biased.So correct me! I ain't a liberal! I'm just calling it like I see it!

Anything specific?

Just edited my post.

Yak, you're "liberal" view is very biased. E.g. "do not support wars fought for democracy" and "bending laws to suit minorities".Really... I very rarely hear of any liberals for war, and even rarer to I hear liberals against affirmative action and gay marriage :) Please tell me why those do not apply.

Yak, you're "liberal" view is very biased. E.g. "do not support wars fought for democracy" and "bending laws to suit minorities".Really... I very rarely hear of any liberals for war, and even rarer to I hear liberals against affirmative action and gay marriage :) Please tell me why those do not apply.

Because the reason liberals would not support a war has nothing to do with it being for deomcracy (debateable at the best of times) but that the reasons for going to war are unjust.

Affirmative action I am against 100% and if I were American I'd be put in the 'liberal' camp quicker than you could say GWB.

As for gay marraige, I'd have thought this was granting equality no matter which way you look at it. Even if you think gays are morally devious or whatever, granting one set of of people exactly the same rights as others is not equality in inverted commas.

It's not so much what you say as the way you say it. Perhaps "Beleive ingiving disadvantaged groups extra help to gain equality with the majority" or "respect national soverenty and don't with to impose american ideals on those who don't wish to be invaded"

I also don't see the relevance of "fighting for children most of the time."

Have I missed something here?

liberals want to be everyones mom, and give hugs and pack you a lunch and scold you if you don't wear your coat.

conservatives want to be everyones dad. to protect them from external dangers. teach them to behave, and beat their asses if they get outa line.
they figure if you forget your coat and get cold you learn a lesson, and an occasional pat on the back is all the encouragement folks should need.

liberal: someone who believes their country should seek to protect the rights of all of its citizens. tend to fight for the equality of everyone in the eyes of the law. they tend to hold to hold a hard line approach to freedom of speech and property, seeing these as more important than national security in most, but not all, cases. they favor a command economy and a bottom-up approach to the stimulation of the economy, seeing the workers and the poor as more important than the higher classes.

oh, and wilson(ww1), fdr(ww2), truman (korea), kennedy/lbj(vietnam), clinton (bosnia, somalia) all fought campaigns for the spread of democracy. in fact, one of bush's platforms last time around was the elimination of this kind of interference, of this nationbuilding as he called it. how soon you forget.

Yak, you're "liberal" view is very biased. E.g. "do not support wars fought for democracy" and "bending laws to suit minorities".Really... I very rarely hear of any liberals for war, and even rarer to I hear liberals against affirmative action and gay marriage :) Please tell me why those do not apply.

Because the reason liberals would not support a war has nothing to do with it being for deomcracy (debateable at the best of times) but that the reasons for going to war are unjust.

Affirmative action I am against 100% and if I were American I'd be put in the 'liberal' camp quicker than you could say GWB.

As for gay marraige, I'd have thought this was granting equality no matter which way you look at it. Even if you think gays are morally devious or whatever, granting one set of of people exactly the same rights as others is not equality in inverted commas.Well, then youi aren't a typical american liberal :P But i'll take your notes into mind.

It's not so much what you say as the way you say it. Perhaps "Beleive ingiving disadvantaged groups extra help to gain equality with the majority" or "respect national soverenty and don't with to impose american ideals on those who don't wish to be invaded"sounds good. But I'm going to have to change something on the conservative definition to say that people should not be given special treatment because of race/religion/gender/lifestlye/name

liberals want to be everyones mom, and give hugs and pack you a lunch and scold you if you don't wear your coat.

conservatives want to be everyones dad. to protect them from external dangers. teach them to behave, and beat their asses if they get outa line.
they figure if you forget your coat and get cold you learn a lesson, and an occasional pat on the back is all the encouragement folks should need.

yeah, liberals manage the household and make sure all groups have the loving nurture they need to become fine productive citizens and will accept them no matter what they do, so long as they have the right intentions in mind.

Yak, you're "liberal" view is very biased.So correct me! I ain't a liberal! I'm just calling it like I see it!

Anything specific?

Just edited my post.

From the "liberal" side - how about these beliefs:

that humanity is more important than nationality

that the right to health care and education should not be dependent on income, but on need

that intolerance is basically wrong (if a supposed Christian insert line "we are all God's creatures")

that multi-million salaries to movie stars and corporate fraudsters is sickeningly immoral when there is starvation and disease anywhere in the world (would you rather see money go to Michael Jackson, or to cancer research?)

that the excesses of captalism need to be curbed, so that all may benefit

that the sick, the disabled, the unemployed have a right to live in dignity

that we all share the same small blue planet, and we all owe a duty of care to it, and should view it as more than a resource to be exploited for maximum short-term profit

that discrimination on any basis is not only morally wrong, but is basically stupidly inefficient, as it discounts people's natural talents.

that people are capable of being motivated for reasons other than self-interest

that people are capable of changing society for the better, a little at a time

I doubt whether they are sentiments that are generally recognised as valid by the conservatives, which I think is a shame. Which leads me to my final point, that liberals are generally more idealistic, and more optimistic, than the conservatives. Conservatives want to return to some false "golden age", liberals see the possibility of a far better tomorrow. No conservative would ever truly say "I have a dream..."

End of rant. Please assume your usual positions.

:lol:

definitions updated!

oh, and wilson(ww1), we were drawn in by allies.fdr(ww2),only because we were directly attacked by a definate enemy truman (korea), He would be considered a conservative today.kennedy/lbj(vietnam),Again, despite being a democrat, Kennedy would be considered a conservative today. He spoke out many times about his fear of what the Democrats were becoming, and he was 100% right, because it;s exactly how they turned outclinton (bosnia, somalia)lol we ran away from somalia, and we went in to bosnia because of the mass murders and ethic cleansing. (wasn't bosnia a UN thing?)

I see many things wrong about this post. Mainly because most of your points agree with typical conservatives. I'll mark those off with an astrikFrom the "liberal" side - how about these beliefs:

*that humanity is more important than nationality

*that the right to health care and education should not be dependent on income, but on need

*that intolerance is basically wrong (if a supposed Christian insert line "we are all God's creatures")

*that multi-million salaries to movie stars and corporate fraudsters is sickeningly immoral when there is starvation and disease anywhere in the world (would you rather see money go to Michael Jackson, or to cancer research?)

that the excesses of captalism need to be curbed, so that all may benefitBut that, excuse the slipery-slope analogy, is a step towards communism, and the opposite of what we have worked so hard for.

*that the sick, the disabled, the unemployed have a right to live in dignity

*that we all share the same small blue planet, and we all owe a duty of care to it, and should view it as more than a resource to be exploited for maximum short-term profit

*that discrimination on any basis is not only morally wrong, but is basically stupidly inefficient, as it discounts people's natural talents.

*that people are capable of being motivated for reasons other than self-interest

*that people are capable of changing society for the better, a little at a time

Which leads me to my final point, that liberals are generally more idealistic, and more optimistic, than the conservatives. Conservatives want to return to some false "golden age", liberals see the possibility of a far better tomorrow. No conservative would ever truly say "I have a dream..."I dunno about that last part... seems kinda out there.

Anyway, most everything you listed lines up with most americans, despite party. You are generalizing all conservatives as selfish greedy corporate tycoons who love to fire gay black people :P totally wrong, and I gotta call you on that.

Anyway, most everything you listed lines up with most americans, despite party. You are generalizing all conservatives as selfish greedy corporate tycoons who love to fire gay black people :P totally wrong, and I gotta call you on that.

Well, just to nitpick, but if these are supposed to be UN-satirical definitions, then your liberal one could definitely use some work. And, frankly, I'm not sure you're necessarily qualified to know what an "average" American liberal thinks.

Let's examine just a few lines:

They typically believe that church and state are currently not seperated enough, and need to be mutually exclusive.

What does "mutually exclusive" mean in this context?

They tend to believe that Judaeo-Christian morals are either old-fashioned, out-of-date, or even restricting to freedom of choice.

First, I think you need to cite some sources, here. Second, I think this is largely an inaccurate statement, since you can have a whole debate just over what constitutes "Judeo-Christian" morals. Also, many people (not just Americans, and I'm sure liberals are included in this) are increasingly becoming "cafeteria"-style Christians or Jews or whatever; picking certain values they like and discarding others they don't. This makes it all the more difficult to make a sweeping statement like, "they believe these values are old-fashioned, out-of-date, etc", because obviously they don't believe that ALL the values are such if they're keeping and observing SOME of them.

They similarly reject anti-terrorism laws/acts because of the inherent restriction of liberties and privacy

This is another similar exaggeration. I don't think it's accurate to say the "average" American liberal REJECTS anti-terrorism laws or acts. It might be more accurate to say they're CONCERNED about them. What constitutes the "rejection" of a law or statute, anyway?

While they do fight for children most of the time, they usually don't strive for the 'nuclear family' unit.

Again, exaggeration and the use of overly vague terms. Defne nuclear family. Define "strive for".

Liberals typically do not support any wars that fight for democracy, out of respect for national soverenty and a wish to not impose american ideals on those who don't wish to be invaded.

You have GOT to be fuck-ing kidding me. This is supposed to be UN-satirical?

Like I said, it sounds to me like you really don't know enough about liberalism or "average American liberals" to speak for them. While some of your statements are accurate in a general way, many of them are just repititions of stereotypes, and, to use your own terms, "I gotta call you on that".

... I also question whether this thread's premise isn't somewhat flawed to start with. Drastically oversimplifying complex and diverse political ideologies to a few blurbs and bullet-points hardly strikes me as the best way of gaining an accurate or thorough understanding of political divisions.

Thanks for that Raysia MT, and all who helped him :D . I am probably a centrist. :roll:

What have I started… :shock:

Anyway, most everything you listed lines up with most americans, despite party. You are generalizing all conservatives as selfish greedy corporate tycoons who love to fire gay black people :P totally wrong, and I gotta call you on that.

Well, just to nitpick, but if these are supposed to be UN-satirical definitions, then your liberal one could definitely use some work. And, frankly, I'm not sure you're necessarily qualified to know what an "average" American liberal thinks.As I stated before :P

Let's examine just a few lines:

They typically believe that church and state are currently not seperated enough, and need to be mutually exclusive.

What does "mutually exclusive" mean in this context?Mutually Exclusive=Have nothing to do with each other.

They tend to believe that Judaeo-Christian morals are either old-fashioned, out-of-date, or even restricting to freedom of choice.

First, I think you need to cite some sources, here. Second, I think this is largely an inaccurate statement, since you can have a whole debate just over what constitutes "Judeo-Christian" morals. Also, many people (not just Americans) are increasingly becoming "cafeteria"-style Christians or Jews or whatever; picking certain values they like and discarding others they don't. This makes it all the more difficult to make a sweeping statement like, "they believe these values are old-fashioned, out-of-date, etc", because obviously they don't believe that ALL the values are such if they're keeping and observing SOME of them.Sources? Who do you think I am? I'm asking YOU guys to help me write the definition!

They similarly reject anti-terrorism laws/acts because of the inherent restriction of liberties and privacy

This is another similar exaggeration. I don't think it's accurate to say the "average" American liberal REJECTS anti-terrorism laws or acts. It might be more accurate to say they're CONCERNED about them. What constitutes the "rejection" of a law or statute, anyway?Maybe reject is the wrong word... but not too many liberals can say "patriot act" without saying that Bush is evil immediately preceding or following :P

While they do fight for children most of the time, they usually don't strive for the 'nuclear family' unit.

Again, exaggeration and the use of overly vague terms. Defne nuclear family. Define "strive for".Typical conservative: Children *NEED to be raised in a family of 1 mother and 1 father. (*They believe that in order to raise a good kid, it's a lot easier if there are two parents, 1 mother and 1 father.) They think parents should stick together until the child is fullly raised.

Typical Liberal: It'd be nice if it was 1 mother 1 father, but if gays want to have kids, or people want to have kids at young ages, that's fine. And if people want to get divorced with kids, that's fine, they don't want to have the kids brought up with angry parents.

Is that really far off?

Liberals typically do not support any wars that fight for democracy, out of respect for national soverenty and a wish to not impose american ideals on those who don't wish to be invaded.

You have GOT to be f----ing kidding me. This is supposed to be UN-satirical?What? Where was I wrong? You don't see many liberals in support of the iraq war, or vietnam, or korea...

EDIT: Like I said, it sounds to me like you really don't know enough about liberalism or "average American liberals" to speak for them. While some of your statements are accurate in a general way, many of them are just repititions of stereotypes, and, to use your own terms, "I gotta call you on that". Go ahead, I know I'm not a liberal... that's why i asked for your opinion and corrections! :P

... I also question whether this thread's premise isn't somewhat flawed to start with. Drastically oversimplifying complex and diverse political ideologies to a few blurbs and bullet-points hardly strikes me as the best way of gaining an accurate or thorough understanding of political divisions.How would you personally answer the question to, say, a 14 year old who never heard the words liberal and conservative?

Oh Ray.. I can't believe you're in the thick of it again..lol.. Oh well, have fun, be nice to each other folks..:)

Oh Ray.. I can't believe you're in the thick of it again..lol.. Oh well, have fun, be nice to each other folks..:)don't worry. I'm most certainly not trying to troll this time. I'm taking every precaution to make sure everyone knows I want to hear their opinion :)

Taking a different tack, perhaps it would be better to allow them to define themselves:


Freedom...

...of conscience

You have the right to think as you wish.

...of religion

You have the right to worship as you please. The government has no business either supporting or opposing religion in general or any specific religion.

...of speech

You have the right to express your views, whatever they may be. Only in the free marketplace of ideas can truth emerge.

Civil rights
All people are equal under the law. Any type of discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or gender is not only inconsistent with a free and civil society, but is immoral as well.

Universal public education
Equality of opportunity requires all Americans to have access to a basic education consistent with maintaining informed citizenship and the ability to participate fully in society.

Tolerance of Differences
Because we are all unique beings, with different skills, needs, and wants, we must respect the life choices of others as long as their life choices do not infringe on the rights enjoyed by other citizens.

A Social Safety Net
Recognizing that circumstances beyond mortal control play a part in all our lives, a basic social safety net shall be avaliable to all who need it, not as a permanent lifestyle, but rather as a helping hand to get back on one's feet.

Employees' Rights
We spend most of our lives working. Work is the foundation of our economy and a major part of the glue holding together communities. The employee is an equal business partner with the employer, and as such, has the right to collectively bargain for terms of employment.

Environmental Protection
Contrary to some people's opinions, it is possible to both protect the environment and sustain economic growth. We support taking all reasonable and responsible steps to protect the environment and the species contained therein.

Strong Families
The family is the primary social unit in America. It must be respected, and encouraged in all its forms. Government should make policy with this in mind.

Responsibility
With rights come responsibilities. Exercising our rights means taking responsibility for our actions, and their effects on others.

Free Enterprise
The capitalist economic system is the most efficient solution to providing for peoples' wants and needs. Government's role is that of a regulator, not a controller of industry, and any regulation must only be for the good of society as a whole, and not for the benefit of any one entity.

Rule of Law
Law is the framework in which society operates. There can be no society without justice. Justice means that those who commit crimes must be made to answer for them, and that the criminal code is fair and wisely constructed. When criminal actions go unpunished, respect for the law weakens. The law applies to all, including all agents of the government.

...most importantly, Progress
Progress is what Liberalism really means; moral progress, economic progress, and social progress to benefit all humanity. This represents the path towards a better world. At its heart, Liberalism is an optimistic philosophy.

[...]

[b]What Liberalism is not:
Liberalism is not socialism
...socialism is the Government owning everything. No liberal would ever advocate such a disastrous idea!

Liberalism is not communism
...communism is everybody owning everything equally, without any government at all. Nobody advocates such a wild experiment!

Liberalism is not collectivism
...collectivism is simply a group of people acting towards a common goal. Interest groups are a form of collectivism, so are the Boy Scouts, the Army, and a football team!

Liberalism is not statism
...statism can be defined as strong central government . Every political group (other than Libertarians) advocates some form of statism.

Liberalism is not big government
...Big government is nothing more than a convenient straw man that conservatives use against liberals. Somehow social programs are defined as big government, while corporate welfare and religious indoctrination are not!

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to he gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Filimai... that's kinda funny... most conservatives share 90% of those points you quoted off that turnleft.com page :P I'm trying to find the DIFFERENCES between them.

As for the definition of conservatives, it's not too bad... but I'm surprised you didn't catch that problem with the liberal points.

Filimai... that's kinda funny... most conservatives share 90% of those points you quoted off that turnleft.com page :P I'm trying to find the DIFFERENCES between them.

As for the definition of conservatives, it's not too bad... but I'm surprised you didn't catch that problem with the liberal points.

It sums up the liberal perspective perfectly.

I think the problem is, the people spouting them as buzzwords have absolutely no idea what they mean, and how specific they actually are.

I see many things wrong about this post. Mainly because most of your points agree with typical conservatives. I'll mark those off with an astrikFrom the "liberal" side - how about these beliefs:

*that humanity is more important than nationality

*that the right to health care and education should not be dependent on income, but on need

*that intolerance is basically wrong (if a supposed Christian insert line "we are all God's creatures")

*that multi-million salaries to movie stars and corporate fraudsters is sickeningly immoral when there is starvation and disease anywhere in the world (would you rather see money go to Michael Jackson, or to cancer research?)

that the excesses of captalism need to be curbed, so that all may benefitBut that, excuse the slipery-slope analogy, is a step towards communism, and the opposite of what we have worked so hard for.

*that the sick, the disabled, the unemployed have a right to live in dignity

*that we all share the same small blue planet, and we all owe a duty of care to it, and should view it as more than a resource to be exploited for maximum short-term profit

*that discrimination on any basis is not only morally wrong, but is basically stupidly inefficient, as it discounts people's natural talents.

*that people are capable of being motivated for reasons other than self-interest

*that people are capable of changing society for the better, a little at a time

Which leads me to my final point, that liberals are generally more idealistic, and more optimistic, than the conservatives. Conservatives want to return to some false "golden age", liberals see the possibility of a far better tomorrow. No conservative would ever truly say "I have a dream..."I dunno about that last part... seems kinda out there.

Anyway, most everything you listed lines up with most americans, despite party. You are generalizing all conservatives as selfish greedy corporate tycoons who love to fire gay black people :P totally wrong, and I gotta call you on that.

You have attempted to claim most of the positives as 'conservative virtues", which we really know are not the case.

Your claiming of "intolerance is basically wrong" I found particularly galling as I have read many of your tirades against gays. Kindly attempt to be consistent in some things, too blatant a hypocricy does not suit.

Likewise, I have read your rants about how the unemployed should not receive social security benefits.

"Sharing the same planet" - the US is one of the few countries that has consistently refused to ratify the Kyoto accords - explain how this can be possible.

"Curbing of the excesses of capitalism" is not some "slippery slope to communism" - firstly please learn to distinguish between socialism and communism - an unfortunately common failing with Americans in general and conservatives in particular. Would you have us return to the "unrestrained capitalism" of the world of Dickens? Would you favour collective bargaining and the rights of unionised labour, or would you believe that "market forces" deliver the best outcomes?

The points I have raised are usually seen as those championed by the left - and we both know it.

Yak, you're "liberal" view is very biased. E.g. "do not support wars fought for democracy" and "bending laws to suit minorities".Really... I very rarely hear of any liberals for war, and even rarer to I hear liberals against affirmative action and gay marriage :) Please tell me why those do not apply.Gay marriage isn't bending laws to suit a minority, its an equal rights issue. And anti AA liberals aren't uncommon, so I'd leave that out as its a contentious issue that doesn't necessarily separate liberals from conservatives

They similarly reject anti-terrorism laws/acts because of the inherent restriction of liberties and privacy

This is another similar exaggeration. I don't think it's accurate to say the "average" American liberal REJECTS anti-terrorism laws or acts. It might be more accurate to say they're CONCERNED about them. What constitutes the "rejection" of a law or statute, anyway?Maybe reject is the wrong word... but not too many liberals can say "patriot act" without saying that Bush is evil immediately preceding or following :P
The way you put it though sound like we oppose the populace being safe from terrorism. I'd go with closer to "Believe that the restrictions placed on liberty and privacy are too great a price to pay for the added safety offered by anti-terrorism laws."

Liberals: Boring word used by conservatives to define "the other guys".

Conservatives: Boring word used by liberals to define "the other guys".

Liberals: Boring word used by conservatives to define "the other guys".

Conservatives: Boring word used by liberals to define "the other guys".

Now there's a definition I can live with! :lol:

What about other not nesessarily radical ideals, like libertarianism, or authoritarianism?

definitions updated!

oh, and wilson(ww1), we were drawn in by allies.fdr(ww2),only because we were directly attacked by a definate enemy truman (korea), He would be considered a conservative today.kennedy/lbj(vietnam),Again, despite being a democrat, Kennedy would be considered a conservative today. He spoke out many times about his fear of what the Democrats were becoming, and he was 100% right, because it;s exactly how they turned outclinton (bosnia, somalia)lol we ran away from somalia, and we went in to bosnia because of the mass murders and ethic cleansing. (wasn't bosnia a UN thing?)

This is absolutely right. Kennedy and Truman would both be considered Conservative. Kennedy repsected and prefered Republicans like Richard M. Nixon and Joe McCarthy over many members of his own Party. Like most Republicans back in the day, Kennedy was an anti communist Cold War Warrior, or at least wanted to be. He also believed in tax cuts.

Truman also wanted to confront the Soviet Union and I have a hard time imaging modern day Democrats (like al gore, jimmy carter, tom daschle, or joe libierman; howard dean seems a little unstable, so you never know with him) authorizing the use of the atomic bomb.

America's no-win Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia, all had UN roots. The UN began as a Communist Front and has now become dominated by brutal dictatorships and Terrorists States, yet despite this fact, liberals still love it. Thousands of American Soldiers and Marines died in Wars unrelated to US defense. When in the face of opposition, instead of standing his moral ground, clinton ordered troops out of Bosnia and Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat." Commander In Chief, George W. Bush, isn't likely to make the same mistake with Al-Sadr.

With the America's War in Iraq, it's a little difficult to tell where liberals and conservatives stand on foreign policy, largely due to 9/11. But I heard something on the "West Wing," which describes how liberals and conservatives used to be: "Republicans want a Big Military, but they don't want it to go anywhere. Democrats want a small military and they want it to go everywhere."

It is an interesting blanket statement: Liberals are against war.

And a false statement too.

Liberals are the first to ask: Why the hell weren't we in Rwanda?

Liberals were the ones that stepped into Kosovo to stop ongoing ethnic cleansing.

Both sides were united on the need to go into Afghanistan, boot out the Taliban, and go after the people that perpetrated 9-11.

So, while you CAN say that liberals are generally against the invasion of Iraq, claiming that they are inherently anti-war is clearly false.

Perhaps what you CAN say is that liberals are against UNNECCESSARY WARS.

That seems fair.

-Z-

Simply put:

Liberal: Anyone with political views to the LEFT of yours.

Conservative: Anyone with views to the RIGHT of yours.

With that in mind, you people really should stop tossing them around like they're some sort of insults. Its just political terms, thats all. And rather flat, nondescript ones at that, I might add.

Seriously, lighten up...

Zepp- Thanks for posting, change made

S-Q and Filimai: What i was trying to say is that the average conservative DOES share those points, despite your prejudice idea of what a stereotypical-but-not-typical conservative is. And when you use words like "tolerance" to describe liberals, I'm willing to be you mean acceptance. Conservatives tend to be tolerant. But tolerance just means not pre-judging someone or refusing to work with someone because they're gay/jewish/black/homeless. As far as I can tell, when Liberals preach tolerance, they ask people to accept other people, which, frankly, most people, especially conservatives, have problems doing. I'll tolerate you, but I don't have to accept what you're doing as right. And furthermore, just because I use a popular generic curse word when I'm mad (that just happens to have a homophobic connotation) doesn't mean I'm intolerant. I am actually very tolerant when I'm not really pissed off at someone posting pictures of dead guys as an anti-bush poster ;)

Fauquier: Umm, then define left and right? :P And sometimes it's necessary to throw those terms at people... no one's blaming liberals for global warming, and no one's blaming conservatives for taking God out of the national anthem :P

Simply put:

Liberal: Anyone with political views to the LEFT of yours.

Conservative: Anyone with views to the RIGHT of yours.

With that in mind, you people really should stop tossing them around like they're some sort of insults. Its just political terms, thats all. And rather flat, nondescript ones at that, I might add.

Seriously, lighten up...Thats not true. There are people on my right that I'd call liberals, only by virtue of them being less left than me. Also, you haven't defined left or right, so you've just shifted the problem.

definitions updated!

oh, and wilson(ww1), we were drawn in by allies. no, theese were the days before we made entagling alliances. in fact, we didnt know which side we would come in on until the german navy kept sinking our boats.
fdr(ww2),only because we were directly attacked by a definate enemy
so he had a reason, isnt that, like, why you should fight a war in the first place? also, didnt he supply weapons to the allies even before that, trying to fight in every way he could despite holdups in a republican congress?

truman (korea), He would be considered a conservative today.[/quote] farther right than, say, dewey and the laissez fairre, small government republicans of the day?

kennedy/lbj(vietnam),Again, despite being a democrat, Kennedy would be considered a conservative today. He spoke out many times about his fear of what the Democrats were becoming, and he was 100% right, because it;s exactly how they turned out and im sure thats why they got the ball rolling on civil rights reforms and lbj started the great society republicans hate so much now.

clinton (bosnia, somalia)lol we ran away from somalia, and we went in to bosnia because of the mass murders and ethic cleansing. (wasn't bosnia a UN thing?)

he ran away because a republican contolled congress wouldnt give him upport. as for the kosovo thing, it was started by nato at the pressing of clinton. anyways, i just named the centuries major wars, and most have been under left wing presidents or presidents that would be considered left wing at the time. liberals are just more cautious when it comes to using forced and see war as a last resort.

F-stein: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3029367#3029367

]kennedy/lbj(vietnam),Again, despite being a democrat, Kennedy would be considered a conservative today. He spoke out many times about his fear of what the Democrats were becoming, and he was 100% right, because it;s exactly how they turned out and im sure thats why they got the ball rolling on civil rights reforms and lbj started the great society republicans hate so much now.

One of the platforms the Republican Party, when first created, was the abolishment of slavery and the prevention of it's expansion. Republican Abraham Lincoln Won the Civil War and pushed forth the Emacipation Proclamation, both were great efforts to ending slavery. It was the Conferderacy who opposed the abolishment of slavery and who succeded from the Union and put up the Conferderate Flag. They were Democrats.

The 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments abolished slavery, granted citizenship and voting rights to African Americans. They were all proposed, sponsored, and passed by Republican Congresses and were opposed by Democrats. The first African American Congressmen were Republicans.

Kennedy was reluctant on Civil Rights. LBJ passed affirmative action, which Republicans are against on the basis that racial injustice in not nearly as pervasive as it once was and it's unconstitutional. LBJ lost the support of many Democrats when he did that.

Well, in terms of Kennedy being reluctant on civil rights, a lot of it had to do with how influential the southern republicans were and how he didn't want to set them against him. The Southern Republicans were fiercely agianst the civil rights movement, and when Kennedy finally spoke out in favour of them, he was vilified. I"m not sure he would have been reelected, if only because his support in the south became very small.

In short, Kennedy was progressive, but he was not a liberal. it IS possible for Conservatives to be progressive, as Luciferius pointed out with people like Abraham Lincoln.

In short, Kennedy was progressive, but he was not a liberal. it IS possible for Conservatives to be progressive, as Luciferius pointed out with people like Abraham Lincoln.

I don't know Raysia. WHat I do know is that the consrevatives of the time saw him as liberal, the democrats saw him as liberal, virtually everyone saw him as liberal. He didn't believe in many of the value of conservatism, as far as I can tell (tax cuts aren't actually conservative necessarily; they're grounded in classical liberal economics, wihch was initially rejected by the conservatives of the time...).

Conservatism, in the way that I understand it, is about respecting and institutionalizing traditions. I think Kennedy would have been against that.

Well, in terms of Kennedy being reluctant on civil rights, a lot of it had to do with how influential the southern republicans were and how he didn't want to set them against him. The Southern Republicans were fiercely agianst the civil rights movement, and when Kennedy finally spoke out in favour of them, he was vilified. I"m not sure he would have been reelected, if only because his support in the south became very small.

Perhaps you forgot to read the paragraph above that: "The 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments abolished slavery, granted citizenship and voting rights to African Americans. They were all proposed, sponsored, and passed by Republican Congresses and were opposed by Democrats. The first African American Congressmen were Republicans."

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

The South wasn't given to the Republicans until sometime after LBJ lost the support of the Southern Democrats and out of anger and ignorance, many switched to the Republican Party. It's more of an issue of people being racist than any Political Party.

Democrats were so against the Civil Rights legislation, that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, rumor has it, he said, "Well, we just lost the South for a generation" to one of his aids.

In short, Kennedy was progressive, but he was not a liberal. it IS possible for Conservatives to be progressive, as Luciferius pointed out with people like Abraham Lincoln.

Man, I have to point out that Kennedy lived in an era when men who didn't smoke a pipe were thought of as un-orthodox anti-americans...

In short, Kennedy was progressive, but he was not a liberal. it IS possible for Conservatives to be progressive, as Luciferius pointed out with people like Abraham Lincoln.

I don't know Raysia. WHat I do know is that the consrevatives of the time saw him as liberal, the democrats saw him as liberal, virtually everyone saw him as liberal. He didn't believe in many of the value of conservatism, as far as I can tell (tax cuts aren't actually conservative necessarily; they're grounded in classical liberal economics, wihch was initially rejected by the conservatives of the time...).

Conservatism, in the way that I understand it, is about respecting and institutionalizing traditions. I think Kennedy would have been against that.He was fiscally liberal, no doubt about that... but his speeches against people who try to remove God from the state and against those who shift the blame on international tragedy from them to us, etrc, mark him as a modern conservative.

Don't deny that the definition of a 1960s liberal and a 2004 liberal have big differences. i said by TODAY's standards, kennedy would be a conservative.

He was fiscally liberal, no doubt about that... but his speeches against people who try to remove God from the state and against those who shift the blame on international tragedy from them to us, etrc, mark him as a modern conservative.

Don't deny that the definition of a 1960s liberal and a 2004 liberal have big differences. i said by TODAY's standards, kennedy would be a conservative.

not all liberals, in fact, most liberals, try to shift the blame to us. youd be hard pressed to find a democrat who *supports* the terrorists. they just dont see it as a black and white issue, that there may be some actions other than blowing the snot out of everything in a turban that will end terrorism. and kennedy was all about negotiation and non-military action. he strarted nuclear disarmamament. if this means he tried to shift the blame ion the us for the cold war, then so be it.

im not saying he was the most leftist person in the world, but i dont think he was as far right as you like to paint him

]kennedy/lbj(vietnam),Again, despite being a democrat, Kennedy would be considered a conservative today. He spoke out many times about his fear of what the Democrats were becoming, and he was 100% right, because it;s exactly how they turned out and im sure thats why they got the ball rolling on civil rights reforms and lbj started the great society republicans hate so much now.

One of the platforms the Republican Party, when first created, was the abolishment of slavery and the prevention of it's expansion. Republican Abraham Lincoln Won the Civil War and pushed forth the Emacipation Proclamation, both were great efforts to ending slavery. It was the Conferderacy who opposed the abolishment of slavery and who succeded from the Union and put up the Conferderate Flag. They were Democrats.

The 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments abolished slavery, granted citizenship and voting rights to African Americans. They were all proposed, sponsored, and passed by Republican Congresses and were opposed by Democrats. The first African American Congressmen were Republicans.



republicans in 1865 were liberal for their era. democrats were conservative. parties evolve, ideologies shift, which is why party names dont always work when trying to decide if an historical figure was liberal or conservative.

Perhaps you forgot to read the paragraph above that: "The 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments abolished slavery, granted citizenship and voting rights to African Americans. They were all proposed, sponsored, and passed by Republican Congresses and were opposed by Democrats. The first African American Congressmen were Republicans."

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

The South wasn't given to the Republicans until sometime after LBJ lost the support of the Southern Democrats and out of anger and ignorance, many switched to the Republican Party. It's more of an issue of people being racist than any Political Party.

Democrats were so against the Civil Rights legislation, that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, rumor has it, he said, "Well, we just lost the South for a generation" to one of his aids.
Hey that's great buddy!

Except that I didn't say anything about democrats, republicans or the like. I just said that Kennedy was more progressive and 'liberal' than the conservatives of the day. That's all. Hope you enjoyed your strawman though.

Hey that's great buddy!

Except that I didn't say anything about democrats, republicans or the like. I just said that Kennedy was more progressive and 'liberal' than the conservatives of the day. That's all. Hope you enjoyed your strawman though.

Acutally I believe your exact words were:

The Southern Republicans were fiercely agianst the civil rights movement...

As Luciferius previously explained, thats simply not true.

Yak, you're "liberal" view is very biased.So correct me! I ain't a liberal! I'm just calling it like I see it!

Anything specific? YEAH!

I am actually very tolerant when I'm not really pissed off at someone posting pictures of dead guys as an anti-bush poster ;):P

But it's just fine when pictures of dead guys are used as pro-Bush propaganda.

Not to be trolling, but this is a good example of partisanship at its best (read: worst)

I am actually very tolerant when I'm not really pissed off at someone posting pictures of dead guys as an anti-bush poster ;):P

But it's just fine when pictures of dead guys are used as pro-Bush propaganda.

Not to be trolling, but this is a good example of partisanship at its best (read: worst)

Who has done this? Where could I see them? I think they're both morally wrong.

I believe that moral values are important, but need to be under constant questioning to ensure that the morals you hold really *are* moral. I will support a liberation effort, if we can actually afford it, but I think liberation efforts shouldn't only take place in those "politically safe" areas. I think the law-abiding citizen *should* have nothing to fear from anti-terrorism acts/laws/etc, but should if those laws infringe upon their rights. Considering that I will one day have children, I will do everything in my power to ensure that America is a good place to raise children. I am pro-life, but not anti-choice. I believe that no one should be given any special treatment because of race/sex/lifestyle/religion/name/age, but also that no one should be given poor treatment because of those factors. I think that the government should spend less, but should tax enough to pay for what they do feel the need to spend, rather than running up a huge debt just so they can be reelected the next term.

I am against Affirmative Action, as I view it as a temporary measure that is past-due for removal. I believe that church and state should be separated, for the safety of both. I am a Christian, and while I find most of the laws of Leviticus outdated, I certainly do *not* believe that Judeo-Christian morals are outdated. I believe that censorship is a restriction and that (a) there should be warnings for programs parents don't want their children to see and (b) parents should raise their children, not the government. I think the nuclear family unit is just great if it is a stable family, but the real item of importance is stability, not how many/what gender the parents are. I think there are reasons to justify wars, but "you have to be just like us" isn't a good reason to invade. (Funny how Bush said this before being elected and changed later - sorry, couldn't help a little Bush-bashing).


Ok, so what am I?

Hey that's great buddy!

Except that I didn't say anything about democrats, republicans or the like. I just said that Kennedy was more progressive and 'liberal' than the conservatives of the day. That's all. Hope you enjoyed your strawman though.

Acutally I believe your exact words were:

The Southern Republicans were fiercely agianst the civil rights movement...

As Luciferius previously explained, thats simply not true.

technically it was the issue of civil rights that created southern republicans. the south had been strongly democratic since the end of reconstruction - basically when the whites stopped letting black people vote republican. then the democrats take up bits of the populist and progressive party platforms, though this was kind of up in the air for a while (see teddy roosevelt). and the political alliance between the official labor unions and the democrats that creates the new deal coalition. which was all fine and dandy as long as nobody pissed off the racist assholes in the south.

fast forward to the civil rights movement and goldwater's nomination and then to nixon's southern strategy, and you have a realignment to the current party positioning: racist assholes joined the republican party out of contempt for civil rights (or to use their terms, in favor of 'states rights') moving it farther to the authoritarian right on average, and the democratic party wound up slightly farther left by default (though still well to the right of other parties backed by the unions throughout the world).

Hey that's great buddy!

Except that I didn't say anything about democrats, republicans or the like. I just said that Kennedy was more progressive and 'liberal' than the conservatives of the day. That's all. Hope you enjoyed your strawman though.

Acutally I believe your exact words were:

The Southern Republicans were fiercely agianst the civil rights movement...

As Luciferius previously explained, thats simply not true.



technically it was the issue of civil rights that created southern republicans. the south had been strongly democratic since the end of reconstruction - basically when the whites stopped letting black people vote republican. then the democrats take up bits of the populist and progressive party platforms, though this was kind of up in the air for a while (see teddy roosevelt). and the political alliance between the official labor unions and the democrats that creates the new deal coalition. which was all fine and dandy as long as nobody pissed off the racist assholes in the south.

fast forward to the civil rights movement and goldwater's nomination and then to nixon's southern strategy, and you have a realignment to the current party positioning: racist assholes joined the republican party out of contempt for civil rights (or to use their terms, in favor of 'states rights') moving it farther to the authoritarian right on average, and the democratic party wound up slightly farther left by default (though still well to the right of other parties backed by the unions throughout the world).

Yes, Luciferius already covered this:

"The 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments abolished slavery, granted citizenship and voting rights to African Americans. They were all proposed, sponsored, and passed by Republican Congresses and were opposed by Democrats. The first African American Congressmen were Republicans."

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

The South wasn't given to the Republicans until sometime after LBJ lost the support of the Southern Democrats and out of anger and ignorance, many switched to the Republican Party. It's more of an issue of people being racist than any Political Party.

Democrats were so against the Civil Rights legislation, that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, rumor has it, he said, "Well, we just lost the South for a generation" to one of his aids."

I am actually very tolerant when I'm not really pissed off at someone posting pictures of dead guys as an anti-bush poster ;):P

But it's just fine when pictures of dead guys are used as pro-Bush propaganda.

Not to be trolling, but this is a good example of partisanship at its best (read: worst)

Who has done this? Where could I see them? I think they're both morally wrong.

Um, Bush did it in commercials. He used pictures of dead people being pulled out of the wreckage of 9-11 (something he had previously said he would not do). If you go back through archives of news sites about a month (I think), you'll see all sorts of things about the controversy it caused.

I am actually very tolerant when I'm not really pissed off at someone posting pictures of dead guys as an anti-bush poster ;):P

But it's just fine when pictures of dead guys are used as pro-Bush propaganda.

Not to be trolling, but this is a good example of partisanship at its best (read: worst)

Who has done this? Where could I see them? I think they're both morally wrong.

Um, Bush did it in commercials. He used pictures of dead people being pulled out of the wreckage of 9-11 (something he had previously said he would not do). If you go back through archives of news sites about a month (I think), you'll see all sorts of things about the controversy it caused.

I remeber the contoversy about that, but I thought it was rather mild. I wasn't nearly as graphic as people acted like it was, just a flag, a building, and some blur.

However, I thought you were talking about ProBush American civilians using photos of dead people (Iraqi mass graves perhaps) for ProBush ads the way AntiBush people use political cartoons, etc. of dead soldiers to express their AntiBush views. I was thinking in terms of ProWar rather than ProBush. Now, I see what you meant. ThanX.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

The South wasn't given to the Republicans until sometime after LBJ lost the support of the Southern Democrats and out of anger and ignorance, many switched to the Republican Party. It's more of an issue of people being racist than any Political Party.

Democrats were so against the Civil Rights legislation, that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, rumor has it, he said, "Well, we just lost the South for a generation" to one of his aids.

yeah the democrats were split up pretty well, and almost totally by region, on the issue of civil rights. the democratic vote in the house on the 1964 civil rights act was 152 for vs 96 against. 141 of the democrats who voted for it were from the north, and 92 of those against were from the south. the republican split was 138 for vs 34 against.

DP .

In short, Kennedy was progressive, but he was not a liberal. it IS possible for Conservatives to be progressive, as Luciferius pointed out with people like Abraham Lincoln.

I don't know Raysia. WHat I do know is that the consrevatives of the time saw him as liberal, the democrats saw him as liberal, virtually everyone saw him as liberal. He didn't believe in many of the value of conservatism, as far as I can tell (tax cuts aren't actually conservative necessarily; they're grounded in classical liberal economics, wihch was initially rejected by the conservatives of the time...).

Conservatism, in the way that I understand it, is about respecting and institutionalizing traditions. I think Kennedy would have been against that.

Left in the hands of Raysia, I am not at all surprised that Kennedy has suddenly become a conservative.

Give Raysia a little more time to work on it, and I don't doubt that Ghandi will suddenly find himself a conservative, while Adolph Hitler, Atilla the HUn, and Genghis Khan will equally suddenly become liberals.

And, of course, we will all believe it, because Raysia said so.

Hey that's great buddy!

Except that I didn't say anything about democrats, republicans or the like. I just said that Kennedy was more progressive and 'liberal' than the conservatives of the day. That's all. Hope you enjoyed your strawman though.

Acutally I believe your exact words were:

The Southern Republicans were fiercely agianst the civil rights movement...

As Luciferius previously explained, thats simply not true.

uh, at the time of Kennedy's presidency, they were against the civil rights movement! You can look it up if you want. The southern republicans during Kennedy's presidency were against the civil rights movement, and you can't get away from that. It's possible historically things had been different, but I'm specifically talking about Kennedy's presidency here, nothing else.

In short, Kennedy was progressive, but he was not a liberal. it IS possible for Conservatives to be progressive, as Luciferius pointed out with people like Abraham Lincoln.

I don't know Raysia. WHat I do know is that the consrevatives of the time saw him as liberal, the democrats saw him as liberal, virtually everyone saw him as liberal. He didn't believe in many of the value of conservatism, as far as I can tell (tax cuts aren't actually conservative necessarily; they're grounded in classical liberal economics, wihch was initially rejected by the conservatives of the time...).

Conservatism, in the way that I understand it, is about respecting and institutionalizing traditions. I think Kennedy would have been against that.

Left in the hands of Raysia, I am not at all surprised that Kennedy has suddenly become a conservative.

Give Raysia a little more time to work on it, and I don't doubt that Ghandi will suddenly find himself a conservative, while Adolph Hitler, Atilla the HUn, and Genghis Khan will equally suddenly become liberals.

And, of course, we will all believe it, because Raysia said so.

Newsflash - Jesus Christ endorses Bush - for details please ask Raysia.

Hey that's great buddy!

Except that I didn't say anything about democrats, republicans or the like. I just said that Kennedy was more progressive and 'liberal' than the conservatives of the day. That's all. Hope you enjoyed your strawman though.

Acutally I believe your exact words were:

The Southern Republicans were fiercely agianst the civil rights movement...

As Luciferius previously explained, thats simply not true.

uh, at the time of Kennedy's presidency, they were against the civil rights movement! You can look it up if you want. The southern republicans during Kennedy's presidency were against the civil rights movement, and you can't get away from that. It's possible historically things had been different, but I'm specifically talking about Kennedy's presidency here, nothing else.

I just looked that up and here's all *I* could find:

(http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-fonte010703.asp)

"Although the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress at the time, a much-higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill. For example, in the House, Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent, 136-35. The Democrats' margin was 153-91 or 63 percent to 37 percent....

"Only a handful of Republicans opposed the civil-rights bill. The most prominent among them was Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who became the party's presidential candidate in 1964. Interestingly, Goldwater had always been a strong supporter of racial equality and supported the Eisenhower civil-rights bills of 1957 and 1960 that strengthened voting rights for African Americans."

(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067400728X/102-8773245-5093708)

"The conservative Democratic Party that reigned throughout the South from the 1930s through the 1970s..."

"When John F. Kennedy became president in January 1961, the Senate juggernaut of southern Democrats was intact."

It appears that "Conservatives" (not Republicans) were opposed to the civil rights movement. Where did you get your info? Could you provide some links?

Here is a more accurate liberal definition. I have italicized the sentences that I edited or added(though conventions corrections are not marked). I will refrain from commenting on the conservative definition as it sounds reasonable and I can't give an insider's perspective. For the record, I am a liberal against affirmative action; it's just racism in reverse.

Average American Liberals: People who believe in giving disadvantaged groups extra help to gain equality with the majority. They typically believe that while church and state need not be mutually exclusive, their separation needs to be more strongly upheld and enforced. They tend to believe that Judeo-Christian morals are either old-fashioned, out-of-date, or even restricting to freedom of choice. They similarly reject anti-terrorism laws/acts because of the inherent restriction of liberties and privacy, and they believe censorship of speech is also restricting their rights. They wish for everyone to have equal rights and a reasonable level of welfare. This includes children's welfare, and one major way that liberals differ from some conservatives and moderates is that they do not believe a healthy family must necessarily be a traditional one. Liberals typically do not support any wars that can be labeled unnecessary, out of respect for national sovereignty and a wish to not impose American ideals on those who don't wish to be invaded. Ideally, economically, they believe that to balance the budget, we must tax people (specifically the wealthy) more and give out government money more generously (hence, liberal). This is in alignment with the tenet that everyone deserves to have enough resources to make a living and be reasonably happy and healthy.

They typically believe that church and state are currently not seperated enough, and need to be mutually exclusive.What does "mutually exclusive" mean in this context?Mutually Exclusive=Have nothing to do with each other.

And what does THAT mean? Give me some examples of what "church and state having nothing to do with each other" means in a practical context, please.

They tend to believe that Judaeo-Christian morals are either old-fashioned, out-of-date, or even restricting to freedom of choice. First, I think you need to cite some sources, here. Second, I think this is largely an inaccurate statement, since you can have a whole debate just over what constitutes "Judeo-Christian" morals. Also, many people (not just Americans) are increasingly becoming "cafeteria"-style Christians or Jews or whatever; picking certain values they like and discarding others they don't. This makes it all the more difficult to make a sweeping statement like, "they believe these values are old-fashioned, out-of-date, etc", because obviously they don't believe that ALL the values are such if they're keeping and observing SOME of them.Sources? Who do you think I am? I'm asking YOU guys to help me write the definition!

I'm asking you for sources because you seem to giving UNINFORMED OPINIONS about what you think liberals believe. The reason to ask for sources would be so we could establish if there is indeed any data to SUPPORT your statement, or if it's just your general impression.

Does this seem unreasonable?

They similarly reject anti-terrorism laws/acts because of the inherent restriction of liberties and privacy This is another similar exaggeration. I don't think it's accurate to say the "average" American liberal REJECTS anti-terrorism laws or acts. It might be more accurate to say they're CONCERNED about them. What constitutes the "rejection" of a law or statute, anyway? Maybe reject is the wrong word... but not too many liberals can say "patriot act" without saying that Bush is evil immediately preceding or following :P

That's another stupid exaggeration. How many liberals could you possibly know, anyway? Just because you have a conception about what a liberal is doesn't mean that this is what all or a majority of liberals believe.

While they do fight for children most of the time, they usually don't strive for the 'nuclear family' unit.Again, exaggeration and the use of overly vague terms. Defne nuclear family. Define "strive for". Typical conservative: Children *NEED to be raised in a family of 1 mother and 1 father. (*They believe that in order to raise a good kid, it's a lot easier if there are two parents, 1 mother and 1 father.) They think parents should stick together until the child is fullly raised.

Typical Liberal: It'd be nice if it was 1 mother 1 father, but if gays want to have kids, or people want to have kids at young ages, that's fine. And if people want to get divorced with kids, that's fine, they don't want to have the kids brought up with angry parents.

Is that really far off?

It's certainly more clear than "don't strive for the nuclear family". Thanks.

Liberals typically do not support any wars that fight for democracy, out of respect for national soverenty and a wish to not impose american ideals on those who don't wish to be invaded.You have GOT to be f----ing kidding me. This is supposed to be UN-satirical?What? Where was I wrong? You don't see many liberals in support of the iraq war, or vietnam, or korea...

The fact that many liberals may have been opposed to those wars does not in any way prove that they don't support "wars that fight for democracy". If you asked the liberals who opposed those wars WHY they were opposed to them, I doubt many would answer, "because they were fighting for democracy". Rather, I would suspect that most liberals who opposed those wars had other reasons, and furthermore, that they did not believe those wars were being fought FOR democracy, which completely nullifies your point. If YOU say we went into Iraq (just now) to "restore democracy", and a lot of liberals don't believe that to have been the reason we went in, it's ludicrous to say they opposed the war specifically BECAUSE "it was being fought for democracy". That's like YOU saying I don't like George W. Bush because he's black, based on the fact that YOU believe he's black, and the fact that I don't like him.

Like I said, it sounds to me like you really don't know enough about liberalism or "average American liberals" to speak for them. While some of your statements are accurate in a general way, many of them are just repetitions of stereotypes, and, to use your own terms, "I gotta call you on that". Go ahead, I know I'm not a liberal... that's why i asked for your opinion and corrections! :P

Happy to be of help.

...I also question whether this thread's premise isn't somewhat flawed to start with. Drastically oversimplifying complex and diverse political ideologies to a few blurbs and bullet-points hardly strikes me as the best way of gaining an accurate or thorough understanding of political divisions. How would you personally answer the question to, say, a 14 year old who never heard the words liberal and conservative?

I'd try to give them some general ideological definitions, and point them towards sources that could give them more information. What you are doing is trying to "sum up" liberals and conservatives into bullet-points, by finding specific examples of political positions and values and then ascribing them to the respective camps. Saying, "conservatives are pro-X, liberals are anti-X" just doesn't strike me as being particularly helpful or insightful to anyone, whether they're 14 or 40.

Zincite: Thanks! Updated

Quajoh: I know I'm uninformed. That's a given. I stated at the start of this thread that I wanted you guys to help me with this.

Quajoh: I know I'm uninformed. That's a given. I stated at the start of this thread that I wanted you guys to help me with this.

Raysia- I'm trying. It just seems to me that it might have been better if you had let liberals define themselves, rather than having you, a conservative, attempt to do so.

Quajoh: I know I'm uninformed. That's a given. I stated at the start of this thread that I wanted you guys to help me with this.

Raysia- I'm trying. It just seems to me that it might have been better if you had let liberals define themselves, rather than having you, a conservative, attempt to do so.read the other half of the post you just quoted. Zincite., a liberal (i presume) just made corrections to my definition. I posted it.

Quajoh: I know I'm uninformed. That's a given. I stated at the start of this thread that I wanted you guys to help me with this.

Raysia- I'm trying. It just seems to me that it might have been better if you had let liberals define themselves, rather than having you, a conservative, attempt to do so.read the other half of the post you just quoted. Zincite., a liberal (i presume) just made corrections to my definition. I posted it.

I question whether it makes sense for you to post the "liberal" part at all. Why not just try to let each side (including your own) articulate their own self-definitions?

Here is a more accurate liberal definition. I have italicized the sentences that I edited or added(though conventions corrections are not marked). I will refrain from commenting on the conservative definition as it sounds reasonable and I can't give an insider's perspective. For the record, I am a liberal against affirmative action; it's just racism in reverse.

Average American Liberals: People who believe in giving disadvantaged groups extra help to gain equality with the majority. They typically believe that while church and state need not be mutually exclusive, their separation needs to be more strongly upheld and enforced. They tend to believe that Judeo-Christian morals are either old-fashioned, out-of-date, or even restricting to freedom of choice. They similarly reject anti-terrorism laws/acts because of the inherent restriction of liberties and privacy, and they believe censorship of speech is also restricting their rights. They wish for everyone to have equal rights and a reasonable level of welfare. This includes children's welfare, and one major way that liberals differ from some conservatives and moderates is that they do not believe a healthy family must necessarily be a traditional one. Liberals typically do not support any wars that can be labeled unnecessary, out of respect for national sovereignty and a wish to not impose American ideals on those who don't wish to be invaded. Ideally, economically, they believe that to balance the budget, we must tax people (specifically the wealthy) more and give out government money more generously (hence, liberal). This is in alignment with the tenet that everyone deserves to have enough resources to make a living and be reasonably happy and healthy.

we dont reject anti-terrorism laws as a whole, just the most draconian and ones that are unconstitutional. and, if you want to get technical, the definition of an economic liberal is one who is for a laissez faire state, adam smith was an economic liberal. so are most republicans.

but any way, the american left now has taken on a control economy and conservative, state influenced economic principals, so well go with american liberals as what we are trying to define. american liberals dont always reject tax cuts, they try to stimulate the economy as much as the next man. so, a better definition would be: they believe in spending money on social programs that promote equality before those that promote order and security. they are for a progressive tax rate instead of a flat one.

Quajoh: I know I'm uninformed. That's a given. I stated at the start of this thread that I wanted you guys to help me with this.

Raysia- I'm trying. It just seems to me that it might have been better if you had let liberals define themselves, rather than having you, a conservative, attempt to do so.read the other half of the post you just quoted. Zincite., a liberal (i presume) just made corrections to my definition. I posted it.

I question whether it makes sense for you to post the "liberal" part at all. Why not just try to let each side (including your own) articulate their own self-definitions?I am.

S-Q and Filimai: What i was trying to say is that the average conservative DOES share those points, despite your prejudice idea of what a stereotypical-but-not-typical conservative is.

I think you (and other conservatives) have some similar problems, only with the political spectrum reversed. Perhaps this thread will help some of us move beyond these stereotypes.

Quajoh: I know I'm uninformed. That's a given. I stated at the start of this thread that I wanted you guys to help me with this.

Raysia- I'm trying. It just seems to me that it might have been better if you had let liberals define themselves, rather than having you, a conservative, attempt to do so.read the other half of the post you just quoted. Zincite., a liberal (i presume) just made corrections to my definition. I posted it.

I question whether it makes sense for you to post the "liberal" part at all. Why not just try to let each side (including your own) articulate their own self-definitions?I am.

Mazel Tov.

Qahjoh- Pretend I've never heard the words liberal and conservative. Tell me what they mean in 100 words or less each.

Qahjoh- Pretend I've never heard the words liberal and conservative. Tell me what they mean in 100 words or less each.

in one hundred words or less?

a conservative: one who sacrifices freedom for law and order. they believe the governments main purpose is to keep its citizens safe and protect them from themselves and eachother as well as outside sources. government exists for protection and lets its citizens rise or fall on their own merits with minimal interference from the government.

a liberal: one who sacrifices freedom to promote equality. they believe government exists to level the playing field and give everyone a chance to succeed, no matter what situation they are born into. they believe that people should make decisions and mistakes for themselves, as long as they hurt noone else. they believe that law and order should be upheld only as much as it absolutly has to without society falling apart.

there's the hundered word definition, but its more complicated than that.

think of government as having three axies, freedom, order and equality. the problem is trying to balance them. there is no perfect government and there is no one goal for it. conservatives think that order is the most important. liberals think its equality. libertarians think its freedom. if you get more extreme, fascists think its order, commies think its equality, anarchists think its freedom. but none of them can be right and theres no perfect ideology and heres why:

In order to have true equality, we have to give up freedoms in the form of high taxes for social programs, etc. I am forced to give up some of my income to pay for wellfare, public education, etc to keep society equal...therefore I am not free to decide how to spend my money. Furthermore, there isn't freedom in hiring or education or even the freedom for local governments to make rules (ask the Little Rock School District about that one). Trying to make society equal is a noble cause, don't get me wrong, but it comes at the cost of freedom and order.

Freedom is not all its cracked up to be either. First of all, unless your ancestors are Kings or Royalty, Im pretty sure you can thank social equality at least in part for advancing you above the level of pig farmer. You can have both freedom and equality...that's called anarchy, but in that system, trust me, you would crave some order. Without order, there is death and mayham, the strong dominate the weak, it is survival of the fitest. And unless you are 500 pounds of pure muscle or really handy with an ak47 and a brilliant military stratagist, or at the very least really dont dig on the whole electricity/hotwater thing, then i don't think anarchy is the right government for you. Order and freedom would be okay too, maybe, except then society is frozen, we woldn't have public education, there would be an aristoctracy...eventually people would crave equality and then we'd have 17th century european conditions...watch les misarables if you think you want to go through that one again. sure, the dancing is cool, and there are some pretty catchy songs, but the bloodbath on the streets, for me, is a major turnoff to that society.

Order can be great, as I just explained, but really doesn't jive with either freedom or equality. Too much order and you have a dictatorship, 1984 stuff...50's propaganda has shown you the pitfalls of too much order over freedom much better then I can, so just rest assured its bad, and if you need more convincing, read Orwell. Order and equality are at odds with each other too. Order is all about keeping the status quo, stabilizing institutions, keeping order and peace, while equality inherintly seeks to change these institutions, shake up the status quo, with its major aims being to make everything fair and equal. If everything were fair and equal, order and equality would thrive, but this society would be fragile and hence there could be no freedom, and hence the society would not be perfect (besides, it couldn't last too long...people get jealous, or someone would get greedy and take more than his/her fair share, and then that society would all fall apart, or at least not be equal anymore).

so, its not as simple as, i want complete freedom, or taxes suck, or drugs are bad, or we need military to protect us. It comes down to this, which one of the three is most important and how important is it in relation to the other two

Qahjoh- Pretend I've never heard the words liberal and conservative. Tell me what they mean in 100 words or less each.

I can do it one:

Impossible.

[Edit: If I have time later, I might attempt to give my own limited definitions- but I certainly won't make any claims as to them being all-encompassing.]

Average American Conservatives: people who believe that the moral values America was founded on should still apply today

This should read "people who believe that the moral values *they believe* America was founded on should still apply today". Many conservatives claim certain values that were not actually instituted at the founding of America. For instance, those who claim "America was founded on Christian principles" or "the nuclear family has always and will always be the best situation." Understand that the nuclear family was pretty much unheard of until the '50s. I don't think we can state that something that has been around only about 40 years can be considered a "moral value America was founded on".

Average American Conservatives: people who believe that the moral values America was founded on should still apply today

This should read "people who believe that the moral values *they believe* America was founded on should still apply today". Many conservatives claim certain values that were not actually instituted at the founding of America. For instance, those who claim "America was founded on Christian principles" or "the nuclear family has always and will always be the best situation." Understand that the nuclear family was pretty much unheard of until the '50s. I don't think we can state that something that has been around only about 40 years can be considered a "moral value America was founded on".

Good point. At the founding of the US, the definition of "nuclear family" included slaves and servants. It's a bit dishonest for people to try and say that the conception of nuclear family is the same now as it was then.

Good point. At the founding of the US, the definition of "nuclear family" included slaves and servants. It's a bit dishonest for people to try and say that the conception of nuclear family is the same now as it was then.

And even after slavery was abolished the family generally included parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents - all living in the same household. Children had plenty of male and female influence, teaching, and discipline and were often mostly raised by their grandparents while their parents worked. The idea of the one father, one mother, 2.5 kids, and a dog family is very new in this country.

At its most basic level:

Conservative: Person who believes in strong traditional values, and will put those to use to solve problems

Liberal: Person who believes in experimentation of ideas to help the world

Conservatives progressive??? I think the key to the argument lies in "conserve".

Average American Conservatives: people who believe that the moral values America was founded on should still apply today

This should read "people who believe that the moral values *they believe* America was founded on should still apply today". Many conservatives claim certain values that were not actually instituted at the founding of America. For instance, those who claim "America was founded on Christian principles" or "the nuclear family has always and will always be the best situation." Understand that the nuclear family was pretty much unheard of until the '50s. I don't think we can state that something that has been around only about 40 years can be considered a "moral value America was founded on".

Amusingly, of course, those who were responsible for the "founding of America" were the liberals of their time. The conservatives believed that rebels against the Crown were dangerous extremist fanatics whose ideas should be repressed.

Average American Conservatives: They believe in freedom for everyone in the world, and will usually support a good old fashioned military liberation effort. They believe that law-abiding citizens should have nothing to fear from anti-terrorism laws/acts. but that ideal fails most of the time because of their tendancy for war when in power.

What you have described is a Neo-Con: someone who believes strongly in military imperialism and police-state security...

A conservative is a military isolationist and believes very strongly in protecting the constitution from the grip of the Federal Governmet (we don't make compromises when it comes to laws that enfringe on our God given Rights)

Average American Liberals: Liberals typically do not support any wars that can be labeled unnecessary, out of respect for national sovereignty and a wish to not impose American ideals on those who don't wish to be invaded.

Tell that to Wilson(WW I), Truman(Korea), LBJ(Vietnam), Clinton(Kosovo) and the rest of their ilk...