Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Definition of a liberal and a conservative

To me, liberals are the ones who, as Robert Kennedy said "see things that never were and ask why not." Conservatives are those who see the value in what is and keep us from losing the good that we have.

I know of no major forward movement in society which has not come about because of the liberal dreaming of what is possible and then pursuading the society to give it a try. Some have worked well; some have not. There is always a risk in change.

I know of no major long-standing practice in this society that has not been maintained because of conservatives seeing a value in that practice and fighting any potential erosion or loss of it. Maintaining some of these values have been very good for this society; some have been detrmiental. There is always a risk.

If we allow liberals to have their way all the time, we will find ourselves in deep trouble. We need to temper their enthusiasm for the possible with a sense of the good of the present.

If we allow conservatives to have their way all the time, we will find ourselves in deep trouble. We need to temper their desire to preserve what is with a recognition that we can always do better and should strive for that.

People seem to instinctively know this. It is one of the reasons why, in politics, the American people gravitate towards the center. Except in unusual situations, any political candidate that espouses an extreme liberal or conservative view will usually be defeated. It is also why the American people since the early 1970's have generally chosen divided government as their preference. As a sopciety, we do not trust the true believers on either side.

One of the best things about our Constitution is that it demands pragmatic compromise for anything to get done. In order for any law to get passed, for any regulation to get enacted, or for any policy to be put in place, the views and values of many people and groups must be considered and incorporated. And when something does get in that goes too far left or right, one need only wait for the next election cycle and then the rough edges can be smoothed and the policy can be tempered, bringing it back to the center.

We need the liberals to move us forward. We need the conservatives to keep us from going too far. Most of all, though, we need the middle-of-the-roaders to keep us on course.

Here it comes. For most of my life I have watched the church and seen it as a microcosim of society. There has been a concerted and relentless effort on the part of intellectuals influenced by Enlightenment thinkers and swept forward by the raucus efforts of 19th century social mechanics. They, and some of them were my relatives, who formed the World Congress of Religions, etc. and prosecuted the social and political disaster we call the Civil War, were sure that people could be made better by being shown better things by their betters. Indeed if they were recalcetrant, they must be compelled. Over three quarters of a million Americans died in the Civil War, and uncounted thousands of Black Americans starved because there was no plan for their social and economic integration. These same charming folk have torn up the 20th century with Socialism and Communism. Chalk up what would fairly be called 100 million deaths for ideology.

Here it comes. For most of my life I have watched the church and seen it as a microcosim of society. There has been a concerted and relentless effort on the part of intellectuals influenced by Enlightenment thinkers and swept forward by the raucus efforts of 19th century social mechanics. They, and some of them were my relatives, who formed the World Congress of Religions, the National Council of Churches ,funded the NAACP etc. and prosecuted the social and political disaster we call the Civil War, were sure that people could be made better by being shown better things by their betters. Indeed if people were recalcetrant, they must be compelled. Over three quarters of a million Americans died in the Civil War, and uncounted thousands of Black Americans starved because there was no workable plan for their social and economic integration. I also had relatives who herded blacks North for the Union cause. Great grandfather claimed that he was the only man in Company K of the 66th Illinois who did not use the sexual favors of the black women in his charge. They were being sent North to work in factories where they had even less legal protection than as slaves.
These same charming folks have torn up the 20th century with Socialism and Communism. Chalk up what would fairly be called 100 million deaths for ideology.
In the church they have spent the last 50 years purging Conservatives. They did so by, in the Presbyterian church, first compelling us to believe several contradictory statements of faith. Book of Confessions 1967. A man who believes contradictory things believes nothing at all. Then, through a series of majority votes on countless issues, they have winowed out anyone who disagreed with them. Always going for the endowments of the church, cynically challenging death bed directives to gain control of trust funds. Now these same "Liberals" reign in a dead and dying institution. Political Liberals are doing the identical things in the national arena today.
This has been a roundabout way of saying things, but I go from my personal experience. The U. S. has been infected with this way of thinking. What passes for Liberality is not compassionate. If it was, Liberals would be outpersonally helping people, instead of using things like the viscious and violently unconstitutional Rico Satutes to gain their political hegonemy. They would seek to work with sincere Conservatives. They never do. Not once in my lifetime. The Bible says the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. Ask the millions who have died this century through war, famine, and abortion it they feel helped by Socilaism and Communism and Nazism. It was called the National SOCIALIST Party and got many of its ideas on releasing people from "lives devoid of meaning" from the founder of Planed Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. She wrote draft laws for the Weimar Republic's use which were later adopted to rid that institution of bedwetters and WW1 veterans who were never visited in hospitals. Later Jews were legally killed, as were 6 million politically uncooperative people. God alone knows how many people Stalin and MAo killed.
True Liberals ,yes I have met a few, and Conservatives believe in helping people not in running them into the ground and hounding them with their own fantasies whose basis is not in law or tradition or the concensus of the governed, but in their own self serving, AND EVER SHIFTING ideas of what is best for the ignorant who do not see the world as they do.
Show me true Liberalism which is not based in the sin of pride and I will die a happy man.

Pique:

I think I could sign my name to this post and have no disagrements whatsoever!

And I agree that the Christian bias of Bush and Ashcroft is deeply disturbing. I am not concerned at all with GWB or Ashcroft publicly proclaming their Christian faith on a personal level, but when they start to explain public policy using religious terms, it makes me more than a little nervous.

We've all been rightly chastised about throwing down opinions without facts, so here are a few quotes:

Ashcroft: "Civilized individuals, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is in the Creator. Governments may guard freedom. Government's don't grant freedom. All people are called to the defense of the Grantor of freedom, and the framework of freedom He created."

GWB: "America seeks peace with people of all faiths."

Re Ashcroft, are we to believe that non-Christian, -Jew or -Muslims aren't civilized individuals? What about atheists/agnostics? And, most importantly, why is religion in this equation at all?

Re GWB: America doesn't seek peace with people who have no faith?

All religions hold tolerance as a high moral and human obligation (leaving aside when religion gets warped via fanaticism). I would like to see it practiced more often.

Nina

Nina,
I don't think you're reading the GWB quote correctly. It was said in context of a new world fraught with terrorism perpetrated by people who consider themselves in a Holy War! But there are members of that same faith who are not Jihadists. So I think he was reaching out to all people, yes even Muslims, who seek peace.

penny

Penny:

My point is the presupposition of all these comments is that they are directed ONLY at people who profess a particular faith, not those who are atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Druid, whatever.

I don't think religion should be in the context at all. These are public speeches, not private comments. These guys represent MY government, indeed are my government. Surely they understand that, in their position, they need to represent ALL Americans, not just those that are part of a religious group they approve of.

Nina

yes, yes, yes, nina. and what really galled me was how bush invoked jesus during his inaugural speech!! i don't remember the words he used anymore, but when i heard that i was really furious.

as far as i was concerned, at that moment he declared that he was only a leader of people who agree with his religious beliefs. that means he is not the president to a very large segment of this nation. until the moment he said that, i was willing to give him a chance, but i will not lend my support to anyone who, by his words or actions, either implies or demands that i take jesus as my savior or i'm not an american or part of his constituency!! for chrisssake! he certainly is not my president.

Nina,

With all due respect, I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I believe that both Mr. Ashcroft and President Bush were attempting to include everyone. President Bush was primarily talking about "peace loving people". He could of sat there all night trying to be all inclusive, rather he hit on the predominant religions.

Mr. Ashcroft is a bit "over the top" by frequently bringing up religion. Nevertheless, I really don't see a problem with his statement either.

I guess I, gasp, agree with Penny on this one!

Derick

If not for Religion, specifically the enlightened Christian views of our Founding Fathers, there would be no such nation as the United States of America. Freedom of Speech, Religion, etc., as we know it, would not exist in this country.

...all men are created equal, endowed by their creator...

Religion has no place in politics? Hogwash! Through a personal religious relationship, man can strive to rise above his inherently carnal nature, and do that which is good.

In the illustrations provided, in neither case do I think the principles advocated, in any way, shape or form, infinge upon the personal religion of any person.

To ask a person to check their personal belief system at the door, before making a momentous decision, flies in the face of the fact that we elect people to the Presidency or other high office, based on both the Public and the Private personna.

To qoute my father, "Son, if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything".

And since we have lurched off into this topic of the personal religions of national leaders, please indulge me and name any important national leaders of the last 200 years, anywhere in the world, who were either agnostic or atheist.

Let's start with Joseph Stalin. Any more?

Define liberal vs. conservative. The first thing I did is to try to draw a definition from the latin roots of the words:

- Liberal, concerned with liberty
- Conservative, concerned with conserving something, such as the status quo.

Although this works from a linguistic perspective, it rarely describes popular opinions or behavior (but this varies from country to country). Consider the following list of popular political issues within the United States:

- Fiscal policy
- Trust/Mistrust of governmental oversight regulation
- Social welfare
- Reproductive rights/abortion
- Foreign policy
- Victims rights vs. rights of the accused
- Separation of powers
- Separation of church and state
- Protection of minority rights
- Immigration
- Power of congress vs. the executive
- Power of states vs. federal government
- Individual privacy
- Campaign finance reform
- Censorship, political correctness debate
- Environmental preservation vs. economic development

Many current 'liberal' hot button issues are not concerned with liberty and many 'conservative' issues do not seek to preserve the status quo. I would argue that the more closely you look at political opinions the less closely those terms serve as useful tools of analysis.

So, one way to define liberal and conservative is to refer to a series of positions based on a list of current hot-button issues. The definition would match the way we use the terms in conversation, but would be subject to nearly constant change, especially due to factors such as location and date.

Another definition would be pejorative: Liberal and conservative are applied to somebody whose views you don't like.

I sometimes see liberal and conservative in terms of their distance from the political center. Almost like a circular continuum rather than a spectrum. The farther you get from the center the more liberals and conservatives differ only in the issues on which they noisily grind their axes.

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

T2

I don't agree with everything my wife does. Does that mean that if someone refuses to show her respect that I should accept that? I already know that those of you who are liberals will use "passing judgment" as your defense of my next comment. It is standard responses 101 from the "liberal handbook" that any time someone says something you don't agree with, call them judgmental. But the simple fact is this: The act of pledging allegiance to the flag is an act of respect. Respect for those who died to make this country free, and respect for the country which they left for us to live in. It serves to remind us of what we have and how we got it, so we won't take it for granted. The act of refusing to do it shows disrespect - for those who died for it, and for the country and its tenets they left us. It doesn't harm you in any way to do it, and as Derick says it only takes about 30 seconds of your time. If I were to call you a communist for refusing to do it, that would be judgmental. If I tell you that you are being disrespectful of the country and everyone in it, that would not be judgmental, any more than telling you it is disrespectful to stand on a grave. And anyone who can claim in one breath that they love this country and in another breath claim they have a right to disrespect it just because they disagree with some of the things about it just doesn't get it.

Quote

this country was founded on religious freedom as a sacred tenet, including the right to NOT believe in god, and to not have a religion.

You are incorrect. It wasn't atheists looking to escape religion who loaded onto tiny little ships without knowing if they'd even make it who settled this land. It wasn't people looking for freedom *from* religion. This country was settled by people looking for a place to practice their religion in freedom. Providing a place for atheists to get away from religion was not on their list of goals. Somewhere along the way, escaping a state religion in favor of a land where any religion was free to practice it got hijacked. It was bastardized into freedom *from* religion, and the very open mindedness of their goal came to be used against us.

Quote

the emphasis on christianity in this country and in our public institutions is deeply offensive to those of us who are not christians. this is our country, too, in case you didn't know that. this is one of the things that ****es me off the most about bush.

Then I guess I *really* **** you off, since I am about to remind you that this *is* a Christian nation. It is not a Jewish nation, a Hindu nation, an Islamic nation, or a Druid nation. It is not the nation of godlessness either. All religions are free to practice without intervention, one of the benefits of living in a Christian nation that purposely intended for there to be freedom *of* religion. But that does not mean those who "abhor religion" have a right to stifle others who mention their religion, whether they are in government or not. You are free to not practice any religion if you want. But when someone does, for you to complain about it is wrong, and you are free to go to another country that isn't a Christian nation if you so desire.

Now- let's get back on track. The purpose of this thread is to find out the definition of liberal and conservative. Things were shaping up pretty good until things got sidetracked. So ante up....

somebody please show me precisely where, by law, the united states of america is a christian nation? if it is in our constitution, i have never heard of it.

what an absurd and revolting idea.

i do know, however, that we are strictly prohibited, by law, from commingling the interests of church and state. it's called the "separation of church and state," a well-known principle of american government. the bushies seem to have forgotten that.

Pique, unlike most bills that are enacted by the United States government, there is no 'legislative intent' document that accompanies the U.S. Constitution. What is used in place of this document is the Federalist Papers. So, that's the first place I would look. But it has been a long time since I looked for any separation of church & state language. I think it is under a paper by James Madison that addresses the rights of minorities.

If memory serves, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and many of the framers of the U.S. constitution were Christians, but they were also 'theists'. In other words, they believed in the existence of God, but they also felt that the best way to preserve the integrity and virtue of both chuch and state was to have these two remain separate. I have long ago threw away my copy of Bernard Baylyn's "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution", but I think he wrote some pretty authoritative stuff on the subject.

You may find it absurd and revolting, but in the sense that I said it, it is true nevertheless.

We aren't a Christian nation by decree, we're a Christian nation by events. As I said - this isn't a Muslim nation. It wasn't Muslims who settled it and set up our government. Iran and Pakistan are Muslim nations, by virtue of the fact that Islamic views shaped their development. Israel is a Jewish nation, by virtue of the fact that Jews shaped their development. And we are a Christian nation, by virtue of the fact that the Christian faith was the majority faith of those who shaped our nation, and still is.

Quote

i do know, however, that we are strictly prohibited, by law, from commingling the interests of church and state. it's called the "separation of church and state," a well-known principle of american government. the bushies seem to have forgotten that.

Show me where that is in our Constitution, Pique. You are doing exactly what I said - you are bastardizing the meaning of "separation of church and state". You want it to mean that "church" cannot dictate to "state". The entire purpose of the principle is to make sure that "state" doesn't dictate to "church". Then you turn right around and insist that George Bush should not talk about his religious faith, the very act of which would be "state" dictating the actions of "church", or in this case, denying the man his freedom to say what he wants to say pertaining to his faith. He isn't "establishing a religion" by using the word God. He isn't trying to force you to accept his views. He is excercising his right to express his religion whenever and wherever he pleases, just exactly as the "separation of church and state" empowers him to do. And according to a recent poll, 86% of Americans call themselves Christian. If it had been Hindus who came to America looking for the right to practice their religion, if the majority view of the Founding Fathers had been Hindu, and if the majority of people in the US practiced the Hindu religion, this would be a Hindu nation. And "separation of Church and State" would mean exactly what it means now - that the state cannot dictate how and when any religion practices their faith, Hindu or not.

Is China an atheist nation? No. The government strongly encourages atheism but by no means denies Buddism, hence the government-sponsored restoration of The Shaolin Temple Complex. While the Chinese government may be wary towards Western Christianity, there is no Chinese law that states that atheism is mandatory. Likewise, there is no law that says that parents can only have one child; it is encouraged through tax benefits and other economic incentives.

Is India a Hindu nation? Yes, simply based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of its citizens practice Hindism and its government does not separate church and state. Less complex than China's case because of the nature of the ideology.

Even though I'm not a religious person, I believe that the US is presently and always has been a Christian nation. May it was just good politicking on their parts, but can you think of any vocally agnostic or atheist presidents (Jolly beat me to it)? Indeed, the mosaic of religions in the US is extensive, but the most lasting and most dominant is Christianity (without splitting hairs on denominations of Christianity).

And it sickens me to think that leaders elected by citizens and voters of this country to serve and represent this country would have reservations about swearing the oath of allegiance.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

You have fallen into the mudhole of logic that happens to people who try to interpret the Constitution and it's amendments one word at a time. T2 is quite correct, if you will peruse the writings of Jefferson and read through the Federalist Papers, you will find that the Founding Father's of this country would be shocked at how we percieve the seperation of Church and State.

The part you are refering to concerns the establishment of a State blessed or sponsored religion. The model these august gentlemen had in mind was the symbiosis between the Anglican Church and the English Government, primarily the monarchy. There was to be no such established American Church.

To suggest that this nation was not founded upon the bedrock of Judeo-Christian theology is ludicrous, and suggests a total lack of historical perspective. Now to argue that the nation has evolved into another, different understanding of religion vs government is a fitting debate, but let's leave revisionist history out of this! :rolleyes:

There may be some other sections that are applicable to the separation of church and state, but the following excepts from Federalist No. 51 address a problem the framers were concerned about known as the tyrrany of the majority. Church and state issues lie partially within the purview of this discussion.

Respectfully,

T2
_________________________________________________

From Federalist No. 51: James Madison, "The Federalist Papers" by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.

"There are moreover two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.
First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people, is submitted to the administration of a single government; and usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people, is first divided between two <snip> [He's talking about the separation of powers and also of the bicameral construction of the legislature within the judicial brance.]
Second. It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. <snip> [In the interest of brevity.]

In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other, in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of the country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particulary recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government; Since it shews [shows] that in exact proportion as the territory of the union may be formed into more circumscribed confederacies or states, oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated, the best security under the republican form, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished; and consequently, the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionally increased. Justice is the end of government. In this the end of civil society. It ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it will be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a soceity under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign, as in a state of nature where the weaker individual os not secured against the violence of the stronger: And as in the latter state even the stronger individuals are prompted by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves: So in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It ben be little doubted, that if the state of Rhode Island was separated from the confederacy, and left to itself, [a real possibility in those days] the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits, would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities, that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for the by the voice fo the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldome take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; and there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of the major party, there must be less pretext also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter; or in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practicable sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self government."

--James Madison, writing under the pen name of Publius, February 6, 1788.

This really addresses the concerns the framers of the Constitution had with the pitfalls that previous democracies had fallen into and is a common theme that runs throughout the Constitutional debates. Religion plays a part in this but it really applies in an even more general sense to any majority faction. This is why it is a mistake to call our form of government a democracy. While it has elements of a democracy it is technically a Constitutional Republic. Under a pure democracy the Bill of Rights would be so much wallpaper being as it is (along with other elements of the Constitution) a protection for the rights of the minority. After all, in a pure democracy the rights of the majority would never need to be protected and the rights of the minority would exist only at the pleasure of the majority.

It is, I believe, commonly accepted that a faction of a religious (or any other) nature should never achieve ascendency in our government but that is not to say that our political leaders judgment should not be informed by their religious convictions or that all trace of religious belief be expunged from their every public utterance. One need only look to the speeches of Washington or Lincoln to see thatt this was never the intent of the people who brought this country into being. At least as they understood it. It is also not clear that the exclusion of every trace of religion from public places was their intent as well.

I have never been particularly religious. I don't regard myself as an atheist but I do not participate in any organized religion. My wife belongs to a Chinese Baptist church but that is her choice and I am supportive of it. It was something she was never really able to do in China (sorry Brendan, only churches that enjoy state sponsorship and subscribe to the ascendency of the Communist Party are allowed in China). I tend to think of religion as a good thing and a positive part of the lives of many people I know. For my part, I believe that if there is a God he (she?) would be more concerned about how I live my life than where I spend my Sundays.

Here's some more stuff relating to the separation of chuch and state:

From the Constitution of the United States, Article VI:

"The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several states legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to supportion this constitution; but [emphasis mine] no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Also, from the Constitution of the United States, Ammendment I, adopted in 1791:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohitibing the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
________________________________________________

There is a lot of disagreement over the 1st Ammendment, especially because it touches people's lives in so many ways. It is a debate I hope we can have in a civilized manner.

For me the words of the 1st Ammendment were seared into my memory during a visit, about a month after the Tian An Men Square Massacre, to Beijing. The blood had by then been removed, but they were still patching the concrete where the bullets from the machine guns landed and where the tanks crushed the steps--and people--as they rolled through. As I walked up the steps I couldn't help but stop to place my hands on the newly placed concrete. I could hear in my mind's ear the cries of the people that died. The experience was overwhelming. I talked later with some of the people that were in the square that day. They believe in the rights that are enumerated in the 1st Ammendment, and they were willing to die for them. I hope that you do not take them too easily for granted.

Respectfully,

T2