What is a conservative? What is a (modern) liberal?

[Little-Acorn]

As several have pointed out here, "liberal" originally meant "supporting liberty". This is what Friedman means when he calls himself a "liberal". That started to change in the first half of the 1900s when Woodrow Wilson and the two Roosevelts started making laws forcing people to restrict their economic and business activities, and has gotten to the point today where modern "liberals" are more accurately called "totalitarian socialists". Now, when someone says he is a liberal, it's necessary to ask whether he means the original, classical liberal or today's modern totalitarians. The two kinds are completely different from each other.

"Conservative" is actually a term of derision coined by the big-govt people of the early 1900s. Until that time, government had always been a minor function that mostly dealt with other nations, prosecuted criminals, and set measurement and monetary standards. It mostly stayed out of people's private lives and economies unless major wars threatened.

But then the people who wanted bigger, more intrusive government started showing up more and more. Normal people who wanted it to stay small and unimportant in ordinary afffairs, were denigrated as being "afraid to change", and wanting to keep government the same simply for that reason, instead of the truth that they had realized that giving govt power to dictate people's lives was destructive. So they were derisively called "conservative", instead of the more correct "restricted government advocates" they actually were. And the same people are called the same thing to this day.

So "liberal" has undergone a radical transformation, from what it once meant to what it means today; while "conservative" has not changed in a hundred years.

P.S. Some people point to the Republican party as an example of what "conservatives" think and do. But the fact is that many Republicans (including GWB, Romney, Gingrich etc.) are strange mixes of conservative and modern-liberal. The best that can be said for them is that they are not 100% totalitarian socialists, unlike most major members of today's Democrat party.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

These terms are all pretty stupid and useless, as they mean whatever you want it to mean, and communicate nothing useful to another person. This goes double for folks around here, who are convinced that the Democratic Party is full of socialists. Study what a real socialist government system is like, and then look at the mess we call the Democrats- there's almost nothing in common there, except for some verbal pandering by the Dems to caring about social systems and safety nets. Socialism is all about a fair redistribution of wealth- it is a philosophy that believes everyone is working together for a greater good, and everyone deserves to reap the rewards. This is not a FORCED situation, it is an agreed-upon situation, at least, in theory. The reality of course is sadly different, just like the reality of capitalism is a far cry from the golden veneer of opportunity and healthy competition that some folks pretend it is. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has no interest in redistributing wealth- it's too busy bending over for rich corporations to engage in any Robin Hood-like actions.

 

[PLC1]

Liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, all political terms that mean pretty much whatever the user wants them to mean, and so really communicate nothing.

Which is why it' so silly to blame all of the nation's problems on "liberals", "conservatives", "neo cons" or whatever. As a rule, the user simply means "everyone who disagrees with my point of view".

So, all of the nation's problems are due to people who disagree with my point of view.

Come to think of it, that may be right.

 

[Gipper]

As several have pointed out here, "liberal" originally meant "supporting liberty". This is what Friedman means when he calls himself a "liberal". That started to change in the first half of the 1900s when Woodrow Wilson and the two Roosevelts started making laws forcing people to restrict their economic and business activities, and has gotten to the point today where modern "liberals" are more accurately called "totalitarian socialists". Now, when someone says he is a liberal, it's necessary to ask whether he means the original, classical liberal or today's modern totalitarians. The two kinds are completely different from each other.

"Conservative" is actually a term of derision coined by the big-govt people of the early 1900s. Until that time, government had always been a minor function that mostly dealt with other nations, prosecuted criminals, and set measurement and monetary standards. It mostly stayed out of people's private lives and economies unless major wars threatened.

But then the people who wanted bigger, more intrusive government started showing up more and more. Normal people who wanted it to stay small and unimportant in ordinary afffairs, were denigrated as being "afraid to change", and wanting to keep government the same simply for that reason, instead of the truth that they had realized that giving govt power to dictate people's lives was destructive. So they were derisively called "conservative", instead of the more correct "restricted government advocates" they actually were. And the same people are called the same thing to this day.

So "liberal" has undergone a radical transformation, from what it once meant to what it means today; while "conservative" has not changed in a hundred years.

P.S. Some people point to the Republican party as an example of what "conservatives" think and do. But the fact is that many Republicans (including GWB, Romney, Gingrich etc.) are strange mixes of conservative and modern-liberal. The best that can be said for them is that they are not 100% totalitarian socialists, unlike most major members of today's Democrat party.

Good thread....on election day.

Lets look at the two major political parties. I believe it is clear that the Ds are primarily as you say Totalitarian Socialists or in many cases Communists. Nearly all Ds gladly went along with the programs proposed by Obama and he is without question a Totalitarian Socialist. The Rs are a mixture, unlike the Ds. The Rs have many members who are Moderate Progressives to full blown progressives. They also have a few conservatives and libertarians. Amazingly, many on the Left ignorantly think ALL Rs are conservatives.

The D party is almost entirely in lock step with socialism. If only it were known to all Americans that they are Totalitarian Socialists, they might find it hard to get re-elected. So proper labeling is something Ds do not like.

While some here think labeling a politician is wrong, I do not. Correctly labeling a politician is very important. This way we know what they stand for. The D party has been hiding from it's true nature for a long time....and this is why they like to condemn those who use labels.

 

[Hobo1]

To me, in American politics, a Liberal is someone who wants to have the government implement programs to help everybody that has a problem - regardless of cost.

A Conservative is someone who believes the government should minimize the the role of government. "Safety net" social programs are necessary, and so are regulations to keep capitalism from becoming too greedy to the point where it harms the general public. But all government programs must not cost more than the government revenue - in other words, no government debt.