How to determine if you're a liberal or a conservative

[Ilya Shambat]

Be well and do good; or
Be good and do well.

This summarized the difference between sincere practicioners of
American liberalism and American conservatism.

The serious conservatives want to (or claim to want to) follow a
strong religious ethical code and to make lots of money. They want to
be good, and they want to do well.

The serious liberals are into health and want to do good in the world.
They want to be well, and they want to do good.

Which of the above two you pick, is a strong determinator of whether
you are a liberal or a conservative.

[Michael Gordge]

On Dec 31, 2:05 pm, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Be well and do good; or
> Be good and do well.

Hey dopey, your above nasal chanting has no meaning without giving the
standard being used to determine good from evil.

MG

[sarge]

As far as I can tell there are two groups of conservatives - one is
focused on the strong ethical set of rules, tradition, nationalism,
iconographic images of family, states, normality
and another
that is fiscally conservative, but really doesn't give a shit about
what people do in their bedrooms or God, though they play to the
bleachers as much as anyone else.

I think the 'health' issue doesn't work as a distinguisher, there are
just different strategies for achieving health and differents senses
of what health is - with a lot of overlap.

[sarge]

On 31 Dec, 06:05, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Be well and do good; or
> Be good and do well.

To me both conservatives and liberals could easily say the second
sentence.

[Don Stockbauer]

How to determine if you're a liberal or a conservative.

What about the excluded mddle?

[tooly]

It's an interesting question; haven't read latest polysci reasoning.

Here's some aspects perhaps to consider:

1) Freedom vs. Security
The two most basic pursuits of human can be summed by these. Again,
the old classical depiction of Apollo vs. Bachus [or Dionisus]
represents ORDER versus CHANGE. Humans create intricate systems of
order, bordering on eloquence, but then 'structure' usually becomes so
rigid, people seek room to grow...or the chaos of tearing down old
structures to build anew [the drunken orgy of Bachus representing the
irrational zeal of spring fever etc]...but then, chaos leaving people
in a lurch to find new security, ergo, new structures are raised. It
is this 'back and forth' cyclic nature of human civilization that
often depicts the conservative vs. the Liberal...where the
conservative PROTECTS the things already created, while the liberal
wants to tear things down to creat anew. There is no 'right or wrong'
here by this model, but only the building energies of the mood of the
people that define the moment [either to be a time to construct, tear
down, or leave as is].

2) Freedom vs. Equality
This angle has been bantered around here lately, and seems to be very
descriptive of the present political struggles at hand. It is an
'unequal' world we live in '[by nature], and to FORCE equality means
taking away at least some freedom from the people [and could be a lot
of freedom lost]. Most conseravtive arguments today can be explained
as simply a desire to be as free as possible without government
intervention. Liberals on the other hand, see government as a TOOL to
construct utopian ideas of total equality and a means to solve human
misery in the world.

Anway...freedom vs. equality...seems very descriptive indeed.

3) Establishment vs. Anti-establishment
From a strictly pragmatic point of view, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT [by jungle
law], and the conservative might be seen as simply trying to PROTECT
the establishment; while the LIBERAL is the onslaught challenger
trying to oust and overtake that 'old realm', to create a new
establishment more condusive to it's likes and dislikes. In America,
this is translating to mean Minorities , people of color. and
[curiosly] women...trying to disempower and overtake While maledom's
establishment of western existence.

4)Tradtional vs. Avant Garde
Humans have evolved from a self identity of 'children of God' to that
of 'organic chemical complexes' in a very short time. This has caused
a demarcation of mindset, one based in old world tradtions of beliefs
and moral codes, the other based in a more objective rational
depiction based upon science. The scientific however has it's
problems, as it reduces human significanse to the point that it
nullfies all 'point and counter point' to any criteria of
'betterment' [scientific or otherwise]. It awakens us from our
established 'stories' to find ourselves 'lost'...adrift in space
without purpose or meaning [and alienated from the old world warmth
founded in moral consciousness]. Under this liberalism, we can piss
on Christ and find it 'conscious raising', having lost any sense of
propriety commonnes among ourselves.

5) Communism vs. Nazism
This is a curious idea that depicts LEFT from RIGHT by the most
extremes along a connected political spectrum of thought. Few of us
understand that CONNECTIVITY; and those 'traditional and conservative'
are indeed TIED to the extreme to the RIGHT just as much as the
moderal LEFT is connected to the extremes to the left. Those extremes
seem to revolve around two IDENTITIES of human nature; one that we
exist upon a HEIRARCHY of differences, while the other attempts to see
humanity as a giant COLLECTIVE of sameness [and any heirarchy is seen
as invented and product of social fllaw].

What is curious is that both extremes to the right or left end in
tyranny [facism] or totalitarianism. Are we more condusive to BEEHIVE
existence where INDIVIDUALISM is erased in servitude to the HIVE [to
the state; the Maoist model of total conformity etc] or is
individualism 'real' [not flawed] and heirarchy exists, not only as
individuals, but as groups as well [meaning that a natural heirarchy
exists and real nicheing that leads to things like specialization and
classism].

[tooly]

using the above, perhaps a self survey might lead to understanding if
one is conservative or liberal. Ergo:
1. If you had to choose only one, which would you choose: Freedom or
Security?
2. Which 'value' is more important to you: Freedom or Equality?
3.Do you see yourself as part of the establishment or part of the anti-
establishment?
[how is your sense of belonging to the society?].
4. Would you choose rationality or morality [again, can only choose
one].
5. If you absolutely had no choice and had to stand on one side of a
line drawn in the sand, which side would you choose? The side
occupied by Communists, or the side occupied by Nazis? [this is a
tough question perhaps as most would say 'neither'; but you have to
stand somewhere]

Hmm...wonder if this could be quantified in some way to provide in
index?

[Zinnic]

Trouble is standing on either side one is on a sliding scale and
needs to work at keeping one's footing.

[jane.playne]

There is:
The modern liberal,
the conservative,
the classical liberal,
the statist, or authoritarian.

They are determined by their view on personal liberty and economic liberty.

The modern liberal believes in:
personal liberty, but not economic liberty.

The conservative believes in:
economic liberty, but not personal liberty.

The Classical liberal believes in:
both personal and economic liberty.

The statist, or authoritarian, believes in:
neither personal nor economic liberty.

[Dare]

"Ilya Shambat" <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:db2842fc-6796-4b2f...@c42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

> Be well and do good; or
> Be good and do well.
>
> This summarized the difference between sincere practicioners of
> American liberalism and American conservatism.
>
> The serious conservatives want to (or claim to want to) follow a
> strong religious ethical code and to make lots of money. They want to
> be good, and they want to do well.
>
> The serious liberals are into health and want to do good in the world.
> They want to be well, and they want to do good.

Do serious liberals consider "doing good" "being good"?
Do serious conservatives consider "doing good" to be
a part of their ethical code?
Can one be a serious fiscal conservative and allow for
a more liberal view of social issues?

[ZisntZ]

Ilya Shambat wrote:

= How to determine if you're a liberal or a conservative

By believing there are such things.

DNC will always vote for war then talk about why, RNC will always vote
for war then yell about why.

DNC tastes great while RNC is less filling.

DNC says they perpetually make mistakes, RNC says they are perpetually
infallible.

DNC wants to use the blue dice, RNC the red. They both pay off the same
people to guard the pot.

[Ramon F Herrera]

The left hates ideas.

The right, people.

-Ramon

[Prof. Godel Fishbreath]

Tooly thanks for your prior post. I copied it for a discussion I am
having elsewhere.
Most of your 'choose one' style questions seem to produce extreme
answers that I do not care for.
But if I had to chose:
1) Freedom, but just by a tad
2) Equality, to 'balance' the last question
3) (Depends on the establishment, but with the Dems in control)
Establishment
4) (again tough decision) Morality
5) Commies.
Self identification: left-middle democrat, was left-middle inde until
Bush.

[M Purcell]

On Dec 31, 9:50 am, "Prof. Godel Fishbreath"

Seem to be a lot extremists around.

> But if I had to chose:
> 1) Freedom, but just by a tad

Some need to protect thierselves and some need to be protected from
thierselves. It seems that conservatives would prefer security, do you
consider privacy a freedom?

> 2) Equality, to 'balance' the last question

In the sense of equal rights I presume.

> 3) (Depends on the establishment, but with the Dems in control)
> Establishment

Seems ironic that a political party would be anti-establishment.

> 4) (again tough decision) Morality

I believe that's a false dichotomy and that mortality requires
rationality.

> 5) Commies.

Pretty much anybody but nazis.

> Self identification: left-middle democrat, was left-middle inde until
> Bush.

Yeah, I like the idea of a third party but it doesn't look like it's
going to happen.

[M Purcell]

On Dec 31, 9:50 am, "Prof. Godel Fishbreath"
<seanearly...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Seem to be a lot of extremists around.

> But if I had to chose:
> 1) Freedom, but just by a tad

Some need to protect thierselves and some need to be protected from

thierselves. It seems conservatives would prefer security, do you
consider privacy a freedom?

> 2) Equality, to 'balance' the last question

In the sense of equal rights I presume.

> 3) (Depends on the establishment, but with the Dems in control)
> Establishment

Seems ironic that a political party would be anti-establishment.

> 4) (again tough decision) Morality

I believe that's a false dichotomy and that morality requires

rationality.

> 5) Commies.

Pretty much anybody but nazis.

> Self identification: left-middle democrat, was left-middle inde until
> Bush.

[Immortalist]

A political spectrum is a way of modeling different political
positions by placing them upon one or more geometric axes symbolizing
independent political dimensions.

Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which
originally referred to seating arrangements in the 18th century French
parliament. According to the simplest left-right axis, communism and
socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left,
opposite fascism and conservatism on the right. Liberalism can mean
different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left,
sometimes on the right.

However, researchers have frequently noted that a single left-right
axis is insufficient in describing the existing variation in political
beliefs, and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at
polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes
are split between cultural issues and economic issues, each scaling
from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the
individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the
welfare of the community). In this context, the left is often
considered individualist (or libertarian) on social/cultural issues
and communitarian (or populist) on economic issues, while the right is
often considered communitarian (or populist) on social/cultural issues
and individualist (or libertarian) on economic issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

[tooly]

On Dec 31, 12:50 pm, "Prof. Godel Fishbreath"

> Bush.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, it's an experiment; a work in progress...but with a simple 1 to
10 scale [1 being extreme LEFT, 10 being extreme RIGHT] , you'd score
4...which makes you moderately Liberal [verifies what you describe of
yourself].

What is a bit confusing is that the conservative stance between
Freedom and Security, is one of 'security', since they represent the
establisment, ergo, Apollo's established structures of law and order,
while the Liberal would be more a 'Bachus' Freedom type, seeking
change and growth [ergo reform, say like OWS].

But in the second category, in a seeming reversal of sorts, the
Conservative would opt for FREEDOM over Equality [as today's political
struggles are decidely defined by class warfare etc].

But please understand, the whole idea is just that...an idea; nothing
authoritative. But it is interesting to me, especially this notion
that the political spectrum is 'connected' to the extremes. By that,
I mean a 'slippery slope' can exist on either side, left or right,
that,if given enough impetus, could move the society into those
extremes [either abject socialism on the one extreme [a totalitarian
state; ergo the collective hive that erase individualism (tries to
anyway)], or fascism on the other]. Few of us would consciously
relate to those extremes, but when forced to choose, I think it offers
some insight into who we are politically. As much as fascism repulses
me, I would have to stand with the fascists if the line in the sand
were drawn. But that just means I'm part of the establishment,
wanting to 'resist' the challenge from the REFORMISTS to overake and
restructure what my Daddies and their Daddies built in the world.
I do believe a HEIRARCHY does exist by natural order.

[tooly]

> needs  to work at  keeping one's footing.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Exactly. The middle ground keeps us sane it seems.
The whole exercise is making me paranoid of charismatics, say what.

[M Purcell]

On Dec 31, 1:13 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Well, it's an experiment; a work in progress...but with a simple 1 to
> 10 scale [1 being extreme LEFT, 10 being extreme RIGHT] , you'd score
> 4...which makes you moderately Liberal [verifies what you describe of
> yourself].
>
> What is a bit confusing is that the conservative stance between
> Freedom and Security, is one of 'security', since they represent the
> establisment, ergo, Apollo's established structures of law and order,
> while the Liberal would be more a 'Bachus' Freedom type, seeking
> change and growth [ergo reform, say like OWS].
>
> But in the second category, in a seeming reversal of sorts, the
> Conservative would opt for FREEDOM over Equality [as today's political
> struggles are decidely defined by class warfare etc].

Not so confusing, conservatives are only interested in their security.

> But please understand, the whole idea is just that...an idea; nothing
> authoritative.  But it is interesting to me, especially this notion
> that the political spectrum is 'connected' to the extremes.  By that,
> I mean a 'slippery slope' can exist on either side, left or right,
> that,if given enough impetus, could move the society into those
> extremes [either abject socialism on the one extreme [a totalitarian
> state; ergo the collective hive that erase individualism (tries to
> anyway)], or fascism on the other].  Few of us would consciously
> relate to those extremes, but when forced to choose, I think it offers
> some insight into who we are politically.  As much as fascism repulses
> me, I would have to stand with the fascists if the line in the sand
> were drawn.  But that just means I'm part of the establishment,
> wanting to 'resist' the challenge from the REFORMISTS to overake and
> restructure what my Daddies and their Daddies built in the world.
> I do believe a HEIRARCHY does exist by natural order.

So do South Koreans.

[M Purcell]

On Dec 31, 1:13 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

> Well, it's an experiment; a work in progress...but with a simple 1 to
> 10 scale [1 being extreme LEFT, 10 being extreme RIGHT] , you'd score
> 4...which makes you moderately Liberal [verifies what you describe of
> yourself].
>
> What is a bit confusing is that the conservative stance between
> Freedom and Security, is one of 'security', since they represent the
> establisment, ergo, Apollo's established structures of law and order,
> while the Liberal would be more a 'Bachus' Freedom type, seeking
> change and growth [ergo reform, say like OWS].
>
> But in the second category, in a seeming reversal of sorts, the
> Conservative would opt for FREEDOM over Equality [as today's political
> struggles are decidely defined by class warfare etc].

Not so confusing, conservatives are only interested in their
security.

> But please understand, the whole idea is just that...an idea; nothing
> authoritative.  But it is interesting to me, especially this notion
> that the political spectrum is 'connected' to the extremes.  By that,
> I mean a 'slippery slope' can exist on either side, left or right,
> that,if given enough impetus, could move the society into those
> extremes [either abject socialism on the one extreme [a totalitarian
> state; ergo the collective hive that erase individualism (tries to
> anyway)], or fascism on the other].  Few of us would consciously
> relate to those extremes, but when forced to choose, I think it offers
> some insight into who we are politically.  As much as fascism repulses
> me, I would have to stand with the fascists if the line in the sand
> were drawn.  But that just means I'm part of the establishment,
> wanting to 'resist' the challenge from the REFORMISTS to overake and
> restructure what my Daddies and their Daddies built in the world.
> I do believe a HEIRARCHY does exist by natural order.

So do North Koreans.

[tooly]

This brings to mind the question of nurture we used to discuss. Total
nurture often 'spoils' the child, leaving them unable to 'face the
cruel world' as adults [so to speak]. This led to an idea trying to
differentiate what is important in human development. We focuse on
'bodies' for instance, as the definitive OBJECT of what we are.
But...is that correct? It would seem behavior spreads across a wide
domain in those bodies, dependent upon the programming one puts into
the machine [so to speak]. This led to the idea that perhaps an even
higher value might the MIND by which the child grows. In this way, a
'justification' is made to 'structure' the child, often with 'though
love' methods that seem 'cruel' to the flesh, but FORMATIVE to the
more important aspect of 'mental health' in a world where struggle is
the norm.

Still, those who more apt for absolute nurture, would perhaps argue to
the 'cruelty' such 'methods' of discipline and structure would appear
to be, even arguing they walk the higher moral ground. But...do
they? Perhaps such 'moralists' only walk the more 'shallow' ground,
not understanding the deeper ramifications of the unstructured MIND
that cannot discipline itself in a world that requires 'some'
discipline just to survive.

As we discussed this more, it was suggested that this debate could
even be 'gender' relevant...where the 'motherly' female, more atuned
to NURTURE, would be more apt to 'spoil the child', while the
'fatherly' male would be more apt to reason out the discipline and
structure [even if it meant' spanking the child for example]. These
notions applied to a wider, grander scale to the society at large,
might give some insight into the Conservative vs. Liberal.
Conservatives do not hate people, but perhaps understand a deeper
aspect of human development that MUST come by way of discipline and
'tough love' in a world that is essentially based upon predatory food
chains. The liberal means well of course, like any mother who loves
her child and wants only succor and comfort for it...but fails to
understand the deeper aspect of how such 'spoiled' condition would not
serve the child in the longer run as adult.

Anway, perhaps the MIND itself might be deserving of a higher plateau
of 'IMPORTANCE' along our value scale, than mere bodies [making it ok
to spank a child for example, if they behave in such ways as to defile
the mind from it's human value [ie, the virtues, like common respect,
kindness, conderation, humility...those sort of things]]. One thing
that bears this out is WAR; and how we can send wave after wave of
BODIES to their deaths, in struggles over IDEAS.

Granted, hard to seperate the MIND from the MATERIAL body, but it does
give some justification for what NEEDS TO BE DONE, that we grow
healthy and strong and not like OWS street floppers.

[tooly]

So does any coach of any basketball team...
in your court...

[M Purcell]

All your Daddies Daddies owned a basketball team? Ohh, wait.

[Joel Olson]

"Ilya Shambat" <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db2842fc-6796-4b2f...@c42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

This is "How to choose a label"?

I'd think most people have already formed an opinion on most things,
and, being constantly bombarded by "information", need to look to their
filters. I.e. where on the spectrum is the Incoming coming from?


--------------------------
The Russians learned from the Mongols a conception of politics which limited the
functions of the state to the collection of tribute (or taxes), maintenance of
order, and preservation of security, but was entirely devoid of any sense of
responsibility for public well-being. - R. Pipes
--------------------------

[M Purcell]

On Jan 2, 2:13 am, "Joel Olson" <joel.ol...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Ilya Shambat" <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:db2842fc-6796-4b2f...@c42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Be well and do good; or
> > Be good and do well.
>
> > This summarized the difference between sincere practicioners of
> > American liberalism and American conservatism.
>
> > The serious conservatives want to (or claim to want to) follow a
> > strong religious ethical code and to make lots of money. They want to
> > be good, and they want to do well.
>
> > The serious liberals are into health and want to do good in the world.
> > They want to be well, and they want to do good.
>
> > Which of the above two you pick, is a strong determinator of whether
> > you are a liberal or a conservative.
>
> This is "How to choose a label"?
>
> I'd think most people have already formed an opinion on most things,
> and, being constantly bombarded by "information", need to look to their
> filters. I.e. where on the spectrum is the Incoming coming from?

Indeed, when a person extols the virtues of freedom it makes a
difference whether they are refering to their own personal freedoms or
to human freedoms.

> --------------------------
> The Russians learned from the Mongols a conception of politics which limited the
> functions of the state to the collection of tribute (or taxes), maintenance of
> order, and preservation of security, but was entirely devoid of any sense of
> responsibility for public well-being.  - R. Pipes
> --------------------------

At least they understood maintenance of the infrastructure and
security (domestic and abroad) requires taxes.

[Joel Olson]

"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6520bfdd-2598-4a97...@n39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nice article. Thanks for pointing it out.

From a broader viewpoint, less specifically western politics, there is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Theory_of_risk
which apparently has evolved from the initial exposition in Mary Douglas's
_The World of Goods_. (An excellent read on many levels.)

[M Purcell]

On Jan 2, 9:59 am, "Joel Olson" <joel.ol...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> From a broader viewpoint, less specifically western politics, there ishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Theory_of_risk

> which apparently has evolved from the initial exposition in Mary Douglas's
> _The World of Goods_. (An excellent read on many levels.)

Intresting, but such reinforcement has long been known by orators; if
you agree with a person, that person is more likely to trust you and
if they don't trust you, they are less likely to agree with you. The
flip side is that beliefs can be changed by a trustworthy source with
a radically different belief or by a radical with the same belief but
that doesn't win elections.

[sarge]

On 31 Dec 2011, 07:01, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> How to determine if you're a liberal or a conservative.
>
> What about the excluded mddle?

Or excluded other.

[Joel Olson]

"M Purcell" <sacs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:202c97d5-1166-4e29...@g21g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At the top end the grid is strong. It consists of insulations between
individuals which prevent free transaction. The rate of interaction might be
lowered either by sheer physical isolation or by self-made rules. Sometimes the
members of a restricted social class may conceive that there are only a few
families into which they can possibly allow their offspring to marry ... - M.
Douglas

In weak-grid, weak-group societies, instead of group values being imposed on the
individual, the latter's personal responsibility is crystallized in the triangle
of honor, shame, and luck. - M. Douglas

In this type of environment a man who is judged a failure will also be judged
wanting in the required moral and intellectual stamina to sustain the honor of
his family, so he will merit the shame he endures. - M. Douglas

We can identify trends in modern industrial society which are progressively
releasing the individual from the close control ... and the coercion of the
bonded group. But instead of being released to freedom, the individual is then
drawn into a very difficult social environment, ..., where he must either
compete or be despised as a deviant; and if he competes he must risk shame and
seek honor, trust to luck, and create ever more uncertainty for all in his
entourage, so that they too will come to value honor, avoid shame, and trust to
luck. That environment is a very harsh one to endure, and for that reason,
individuals either opt out of it, ... or they are forced out of it by being
forced into a position of minimum choice and maximum isolation. - M. Douglas

[M Purcell]

On Jan 2, 5:14 pm, "Joel Olson" <joel.ol...@cox.net> wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message

> forced into a position of minimum choice and maximum isolation.  - M. Douglas-

Maybe they will get lucky.

[tooly]

> Maybe they will get lucky.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Apparently not...

[ala]

"sarge" <grease...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:546542bf-2bf8-4ae8...@t8g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> On 31 Dec, 06:05, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Be well and do good; or
>> Be good and do well.
>

> To me both conservatives and liberals could easily say the second
> sentence.

"The man of system ... is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is
often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of
government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of
it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any
regard either to the great interests or to the strong prejudices which may
oppose it." --economist Adam Smith (1723-1790)