Values: Conservative vs. Liberal

[Buddahaid]

Let's find out what our viewers define as conservative values and liberal values. I'm betting there's not as wide of a gap as some of us think.

But first, we must define what the values are. Can it be boiled down to a few categories? Or is the devil in the details?

Religious?

Family?

Country?

Personal?

Life?

EDIT: Here's the text and a link to where it's from for some points.

http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons...efinition.html


Return to the Core Democratic Home Page.

Core Democratic Values

This section is divided into two parts the Fundamental Beliefs (Often referred to as the Core Democratic Values of Elementary Students.) and the Constitutional Principals.
Fundamental Beliefs

Life: A person's right to life can't be violated except if your life or the lives of others is threatened.
Liberty: This includes personal freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. This is the freedom for people to gather in groups. They have their own beliefs, ideas and opinions. People also have the right to express their opinions in public.

• Personal Freedom - the right to think and act without government control.
• Political Freedom - the right to participate in political process.
• Economic Freedom - the right to buy, sell and trade private property and the right to employment without the government interfering.

The Pursuit of Happiness: As long as you don't interfere with others you have the right to seek happiness in your own way.
Common Good: Working together for the welfare of the community or the benefit of all.
Justice: All people should be treated fairly in both the benefits and the obligations of society. No individual or group should be favored over another person or group.
Equality: Everyone has the right to Political, Legal, Social and Economic Equality. Everyone has the right to the same treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, heritage, or economic status.
Diversity: The differences in culture, dress, language, heritage and religion are not just tolerated, but celebrated as a strength.
Truth: They should expect and demand that the government not lie to them and the government should disclose information to the people. The government and its people should not lie.
Popular Sovereignty: The power of the government comes from the people. The people are the ultimate authority over the government.
Patriotism: The people or citizens show a love and devotion for their country and the values. They can show this by words or by actions.
Constitutional Principles

Rule of Law: Both the people and the government must obey all laws.
Separation of Powers: The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government should be separate institutions so no one branch has all of the power.
Representative Government: People have the right to elect others to represent them in the government.
Checks and Balances: The powers of the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, should be balanced. No one branch should be dominate. Each branch should have powers to check the actions of the other branches.
Individual Rights: Each individual has the fundamental right to life, liberty, economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the government should protect these rights and not place undo restrictions upon them.
Freedom of Religion: The right to practice any or no religion without persecution by the government.
Federalism: The states and the federal government share power as outlined by the Constitution.
Civilian Control of the Military: The people control the military to preserve democracy.

This page was last modified on Sunday, January 25, 2004

[Aramike]

This is kind of why I don't call myself a conservative even though the majority of my views ARE conservative. I believe in families, accountability, limited government, etc. But I'm also an agnostic and a staunch believer in science. I believe that the abortion debate is filled with people on both sides who are full of it (pro-life and pro-choice are completely misleading descriptors).

I could go on but my point is that in general it should be fairly difficult to fit everyone neatly into one of two broad political views.

But I will make a generalization: conservatives tend to buy more completely into the entire package, while liberalism is saddled with more of the single-issue crowd, and is more likely to have divergent views within the group. For example, PETA is clearly a liberal organization as is the Meatpacking Union. Or how about Greenpeace and the UAW? Or how about the gay/lesbian community and the African-American demographic, which is decidely anti-gay?

The American Democratic Party consists of very strange bedfellows. This is why I sometimes muse that the Republican Party is about principles (although I don't agree with all of them) and the Democratic Party is about not having principles.

[Buddahaid]

I see the first thing to clear up is does conservative mean Republican, and liberal mean Democrat. I don't think so, but you almost always here the two pairs together, as conservative Republicans this, and liberal Democrats that. I feel that serves no purpose but to polarize the public into party lines regardless of the issue at hand.

Interesting. You're saying, in general, that if one felt strongly enough that homosexuality was a sin, they would more likely buy the whole package and be a Republican. Even if, as was brought out last week, a Republican county in CA uses nearly twice the per capita state funds than more Democratic counties. These people seem to be liberal Republicans, but hold those principals.

Buddahaid

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I see the first thing to clear up is does conservative mean Republican, and liberal mean Democrat. I don't think so, but you almost always here the two pairs together, as conservative Republicans this, and liberal Democrats that.

I think you are correct here. People of both/either political party can be Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal.

I also believe that those three terms can not be absolute but are alway relative.

A person can't be "a conservative", but they can be more conservative than "someone else".

But then people have the right to call themselves what ever makes them feel comfortable.

What I hate is when people try to nullify someone's opinion by labeling them.

"Oh well he is just a Conservative, that's why he thinks like that"
or

"What else can you expect from a Liberal"

Instead of truly trying to understand their opinion.

Anytime we apply labels we are hindering communication and understanding between people of different opinions.

[Aramike]

What I hate is when people try to nullify someone's opinion by labeling them.

"Oh well he is just a Conservative, that's why he thinks like that"
or

"What else can you expect from a Liberal"

Instead of truly trying to understand their opinion.

Anytime we apply labels we are hindering communication and understanding between people of different opinions.

I agree with this. If one has sound reasoning than such ad hominem statements are unnecessary.

[Aramike]

Interesting. You're saying, in general, that if one felt strongly enough that homosexuality was a sin, they would more likely buy the whole package and be a Republican. Even if, as was brought out last week, a Republican county in CA uses nearly twice the per capita state funds than more Democratic counties. These people seem to be liberal Republicans, but hold those principals.

Actually, I'm saying the opposite; that the single issue voter more often emerges in the Democratic Party.

[CaptainHaplo]

Core Democratic Values

Life: A person's right to life can't be violated except if your life or the lives of others is threatened.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" differ here - primarily on the issues of abortion and the death penalty.

The mainstream "Conservative" stance on abortion is that life is sacred, and so abortions should not occur unless there is an imminent danger to the life of the mother, or other extreme rationale.

The mainstream "Liberal" stance states that because abortion is "before birth", it is ok to kill an unborn child, even when they could have survived outside the womb, all on the "choice" of the woman pregnant. Instead of adhering to the idea listed above, liberalist try to redefine what "Life" is.

Liberty: This includes personal freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. This is the freedom for people to gather in groups. They have their own beliefs, ideas and opinions. People also have the right to express their opinions in public.

"Conservative" - people have the right to express their opinions in public - as long as such expression does not harm or infringe the rights of others. Cases in point would be anti-war demonstrations during the Bush administration - they were frequent and had no issues - EXPECT when they crossed certain lines - such as interfering in the funerals of servicemen and woment who had come home to be laid to rest. Such interference was a harm to the family members, and even then there was some leeway given.

"Liberal" views on liberty and the free expression of ideas, beliefs and opinions can be seen via the demonstrated double standards such people and groups routinely display. For example - christian churches being excluded from "holiday parades" due to their overt religiousity, yet no fuss is put up when muslim prayer calls are broadcast over public loudspeakers at the town square in some towns in the US. Free expression of ideas? Sure, you can do that - as long as those ideas agree with liberal thoughts. Doubt me? Then why do we have such things as the refusal to discuss global warming on the basis of scientific facts? Why do we still have liberal legislators pushing the "Fairness Act" in regards to talk radio?

• Personal Freedom - the right to think and act without government control.
• Political Freedom - the right to participate in political process.
• Economic Freedom - the right to buy, sell and trade private property and the right to employment without the government interfering.

Political Freedom - your allowed to vote - but if your in a group that might vote in a way that isn't in support of the liberal agenda - for example - most military ballots - will be challenged in court in an attempt to disenfranchise you. If your voting in certain precincts, but might vote in a way that isnt't in line with certain groups, you may end up with a black panther watching to make sure you vote the way you "OUGHT" to. If your a member of a union - sure you get to vote - even as you watch your union dues go to support a candidate that may disagree with what your views are - because you don't get a say in where that money goes.

Economic Freedom - buy, sell and trade private property without government interference? Ever heard of taxes - sales tax, death tax, inheritance tax, etc etc. Both sides have their hand in that cookie jar, though one side likes that cookie more than the other. No government interference in business? Again - both sides can't keep their hands out of business - see both the Bush and Obama "economic stimulus (AKA we know own that)" packages.... And what happens if your in the medical field - and now your run by the government? Seems conservitive ideals are against that - liberals are for it....

The Pursuit of Happiness: As long as you don't interfere with others you have the right to seek happiness in your own way.

Conservative - key word is PURSUIT - you can seek it - but its not guaranteed to you. Also - as long as you don't harm others to get it.

Liberalist - If you seek it and it doesn't fall into your lap - then the government should provide it for you - via welfare, government healthcare, or other social program. The fact that it takes away from the money of others that they earned is really not a harm to them, because if they become destitute, then they can go on the government nipple to.

Common Good: Working together for the welfare of the community or the benefit of all.

Conservative - Its important to remember that this is a RIGHT - not a RESPONSIBILITY. If an individual chooses to not do so, they also should have that right, as well as the repercussions within their own community.

Liberalist - This is a responsibility - and should be controlled by the government. If you work harder than your neighbor - and can afford more than he can, you should have that extra taken away - via taxes, fees, or whatever other terms are appropriate, because you have the duty to help your fellow, regardless of whether you want to or not. This isn't really causing you any harm because you can afford it - and if you can't - then either work harder so you can support those who won't do it themsleves, or stop working and begin to feed of the government nipple...

Justice: All people should be treated fairly in both the benefits and the obligations of society. No individual or group should be favored over another person or group.

Conservative - People should be dealt with purely on the basis of merit. An ideal perhaps, but one worth striving for. The cream should rise to the top.

Liberalist - All people should be treated "fairly". Fairly means that everyone is the same. No one group should be favored - unless they are a minority. If they are a minority (defined as anyone not a white male), then favoritism should be shown, via things such as quota's, regardless of merit, because sometime in the past that person's ancestor may have been discriminated against. While some would claim this is discrimination against white men, they got all the breaks for centuries, they owe it to society to take a backseat. *The exception is all the old white liberal guys in power - because they are enlightened leaders of the cause.*

Equality: Everyone has the right to Political, Legal, Social and Economic Equality. Everyone has the right to the same treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, heritage, or economic status.

Conservative and Liberal both screw this us - check ballot access. In most areas, if your not a member of the "big two" - you have no political equality, as your not allowed to run without jumping through a number of difficult (and expensive) hoops to even get on the ballot.

Legal - both sides agree on this.

Social and Economic Equality - here is the big one.
Conservitism - you have the right to ATTAIN - solely by your own efforts - social and economic equality.
Liberalism - You have the right to be equal to everyone else. If a rich person makes $16k a month, $14k of it should be taken, and redistributed to 7 other people, so everyone has $2k a month. That is equality.

Diversity: The differences in culture, dress, language, heritage and religion are not just tolerated, but celebrated as a strength.

Conservativism - Culture, heritage and religion - yes. Dress - is a personal freedom as long as it is within socially accepted standards for the location in question. Multi-lingualism is a credit to those who partake, but as a government, there should be a "standard" language so that there is uniformity and fairness in services. In the US, historically the "national" language is English, as our founding documents are written in that language. Thus, the official language of government and its people should be English.

Liberalist - If you can't embrace that which is different than you are, you must be a member of the kkk or other wacko group that hates anyone that isn't exactly like they are. All cultures (Except for conservative American) should be celebrated. All heritages - latin, french, amerindian, african, eskimo, etc - should be celebrated. The only exception is if your white - then you should shut up and celebrate everyone elses - but don't dare ask for a "white" history month.... All religions - no matter how lacking in any foundation or proven fraudulent - such as scientology - should be celebrated. The only exception is christianity, which should be disallowed to partake in any social setting and instead repressed at every opportunity. This is not only because it supports moral and ethical thoughts that are against liberalist thinking, but also because it is the religion of choice by most evil whites.

Truth: They should expect and demand that the government not lie to them and the government should disclose information to the people. The government and its people should not lie.

Again both sides get this wrong - and examples on both sides abound where the faith has been broken. The though process for both sides seems to indicate that this works under the guise of "what they don't know we won't get in trouble for."

Popular Sovereignty: The power of the government comes from the people. The people are the ultimate authority over the government.

Conservative - While this is the case, the people's role in government should be via representative in nature, so that 51% do not rule 49%. Otherwise, mob rule would be present. Voter referendums and such should be binding on the representatives, as well as the voters should make their will known to their legislators.

Liberalist - The most votes wins. Plain and simply. Allow the mob to rule, because whatever way society goes must be the right way. The only time this isn't the case is when society moves contrary to liberal thought, at which time the court must be used to overturn the will of the people, or the political leadership must refuse to listen to the voters, thus protecting those voters from their own lack of nuance or ignorance.

Patriotism: The people or citizens show a love and devotion for their country and the values. They can show this by words or by actions.

Conservatist thought - That love and devotion is for the country and the values it has demonstrated over the past 230+ years of existence.

Liberalist thought - the love and devotion is for the country as it SHOULD be - in other words - as defined by modern liberal thought. The old values of personal responsibility, leadership, hard work can get you ahead, etc - should be cast aside so that a liberal utopia can be established. Things like the military, a responsible, informed and armed society - should be disgraced and done away with as impediments to that liberal paradise.

Constitutional Principles

Rule of Law: Both the people and the government must obey all laws.

Both sides give lip service to this - both ignore it when such laws are an impediment to their agenda's.

Separation of Powers: The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government should be separate institutions so no one branch has all of the power.

Representative Government: People have the right to elect others to represent them in the government.

Checks and Balances: The powers of the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, should be balanced. No one branch should be dominate. Each branch should have powers to check the actions of the other branches.


These are combined because they all can be addressed together.
Conservative thought - All three branches should provide stability to the others, with the Executive being the "lead" on where to go, the Legislative being the will of the people made manifest, and the Judiciary poised to balance questions of law in the path that is taken.
Liberalist though - The Executive should look forward and set a goal, the Legislative should push through that goal provided it is in line with liberal agendas, and the judiciary should be used to protect any liberal thought that cannot survive a review of the people.

Individual Rights: Each individual has the fundamental right to life, liberty, economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the government should protect these rights and not place undo restrictions upon them.

Conservative - Agreed in full. True conservatism dictates that the states should take a more active role in the government of their own citizenry.

Liberalist - The rights of the Federal Government into the lives of people should not be limited. After all, the Government knows whats best. You don't just have the right to happiness, you have the right to expect the government to give it to you. That may require that some of the other rights be put aside, like your right to own a gun, but really - you don't need one of those anyway now do you? If we take them all away from the people who have more than you do, we can tax them so they have the same as you, and if they have those nasty guns they might try to stop us.

Freedom of Religion: The right to practice any or no religion without persecution by the government.

Conservatist - This right exists as long as the relgiion is question and its practice harms no other, and does not infringe upon the rights of others to practice (or not) their own religion. The government has the duty to protect this right of its people.

Liberalist - The writers made a mistake when they wrote this. They meant freedom FROM religion - especially the christian one. All other religions are great, and tolerating them shows how multi-culti-nuanced one is. Tolerance of christianity however should be outlawed. It should be repressed and restrained in any and all ways. Sure all those other religions have lots of moral thoughts and stuff too, but if we can get rid of christianity, then the biggest of the players is gone and the rest will be pushed away with relative ease.

Federalism: The states and the federal government share power as outlined by the Constitution.

Both sides have lost even the pretense of giving this one lip service in todays political climate.

Civilian Control of the Military: The people control the military to preserve democracy.

Conservative - the military answers to the government - which should answer to the people.

Liberalist - The military is evil, because its violent and we would be much better off if everyone sat around a campfire and sang coom-bye-ahhh (but without the "my lord" part as that implies religion - YECH!) We really should get rid of all the military - think how much money we could spend on social programs. And if we didn't have big bad weapons, the world would see how peace loving and friendly we really are, and they would love us again and we could all share a big group hug and live happily ever after. We don't need a military because all the "bad guys" just need to not feel so threatened by us to start being nice and good. They have only been "bad" because of us.

************************************************** ******
This is in many ways generalizations, but also generally true.
************************************************** ******

[Buddahaid]

Thanks for your views! Maybe I look harder at the fringe of conservatives and see where they stray from the core values, but your assessment of liberals seems to envelope all the more extreme aspects and lump them together into a composite liberal who would be a communist in my book. And I can't really argue that any of your views on liberals are wrong, I just think most liberals are more centrist overall, at least those who I know.

Buddahaid

[Thomen]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Thanks for your views! Maybe I look harder at the fringe of conservatives and see where they stray from the core values, but your assessment of liberals seems to envelope all the more extreme aspects and lump them together into a composite liberal who would be a communist in my book. And I can't really argue that any of your views on liberals are wrong, I just think most liberals are more centrist overall, at least those who I know.

Buddahaid

My wife sses herself as a Fiscal Conservative and my Stepdaugthers boyfriends Mother sees herself a big Democrat. If you listen to both, either independently or when they actually do talk politics it is rather.. uh.. surprising. Both say the same damn thing and acknowledge almost the same core values. The only difference they seriously have is in the area of man-made Global Warming and where they make the mark on the ballot.

[CaptainHaplo]

Buddahaid - I think both sides have their extremes. Unfortunately, the extremes on both sides are the most "vocal". This is why the "silent majority" truly is much more "centrist" than either side realized.

What we need is to get that majority to stop being silent - and we could get this country away from either extreme.

I laugh alot when I hear that term - "centrist" - mainly because the extremes on both sides like to point it out as "moderate" or undecided - when it simply is nothing more than those who look at things with realistic common sense.

I admit my views are more critical of the "liberal" part of the equation, but that is mainly because I disagree so vehemently with the extreme parts of it that are pushed so hard. There are a number of conservative extremes that I also disagree with, but as they are not really major issues facing the country at the moment, there isn't much reason to spend time worrying over them, in my view.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Buddahaid - I think both sides have their extremes. Unfortunately, the extremes on both sides are the most "vocal". This is why the "silent majority" truly is much more "centrist" than either side realized.

What we need is to get that majority to stop being silent - and we could get this country away from either extreme.

I laugh alot when I hear that term - "centrist" - mainly because the extremes on both sides like to point it out as "moderate" or undecided - when it simply is nothing more than those who look at things with realistic common sense.

I admit my views are more critical of the "liberal" part of the equation, but that is mainly because I disagree so vehemently with the extreme parts of it that are pushed so hard. There are a number of conservative extremes that I also disagree with, but as they are not really major issues facing the country at the moment, there isn't much reason to spend time worrying over them, in my view.

I was mulling this over while painting a door frame, and stuck on the life/religion views. Conservatives, who are by and large Christians, will place the beginning of life at conception, and wish this view to be the law of the land. Interesting as Christianity, at least the Latin Catholic type, has always put more emphasis on the afterlife as being of prime importance, and your time on earth of little value save as far as earning points for the good. This is the whole basis behind being a monk and living an austere existence. Anyway, not all religions share that view, and as such enacting that view into law does appear on the surface, to be enforcing one religion above others. Tough one which brings up another issue regarding abortion clinic killings. I can't figure out why some individuals feel compelled to take God's wrath into their own hands as if He can't manage it Himself. If they were to be true believers, than all sinners will be handed their due in the afterlife. So, it seems they must have an inner conflict with their leap of faith.

Buddahaid

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

************************************************** ******
This is in many ways generalizations, but also generally true.
************************************************** ******

Or not.

So liberals hate the military, are against free speech, welcome government control in personal affairs, and are communists in all but name.

Here's one difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives apparently believe their own propaganda. I don't know how many times Democrats have been called terrorist-lovers, traitors, Marxists, etc. over the past 8 years... not just by the Republican base, but by Republican politicians as well.

I just don't hear the same reality-free vitriol coming from liberals.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Or not.

So liberals hate the military, are against free speech, welcome government control in personal affairs, and are communists in all but name.

Here's one difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives apparently believe their own propaganda. I don't know how many times Democrats have been called terrorist-lovers, traitors, Marxists, etc. over the past 8 years... not just by the Republican base, but by Republican politicians who should know better.

I just don't hear the same reality-free vitriol coming from liberals.


[/left]

Hmmm. My calling the CaptainHaplo's composite of liberal extreme behavior a communist would seem to fit, just as calling a composite of extreme conservative behavior a fascist would seem to fit in my view. This is not saying because you have a liberal or conservative leaning, you are one or the other. And I think both do pretty well at the propaganda game after their own fashion.

If this thread boils down to a name calling war, the purpose will be lost. Let's try to keep the tone less inflammatory or I can see that CastlBravo's opinion may yet prevail. The original post from CaptainHaplo was in the right direction from a conservative stance. We need a similar response from a liberal stance for balance.

Buddahaid

[CaptainHaplo]

Angus - I pointed out that the layout I gave is what is prevalently put out as liberalist thought. However, I also made note that it is the EXTREMIST on BOTH sides that have created the picture and views of the general person. Not every person who considers themselves to be "left" or liberal is a bad person, or any of the things described above. However, the items above are the "face" of liberalism today - as it is demonstrated by those who call themselves "liberals" or "progressives" in power today. I know not every liberal is like this - which is why I made the note about generalization. However, if you choose to take offense, thats your choice.

This discussion - and your reaction to it - is a perfect example of why we should ALL get rid of the labels and the letters beside names - and deal with ISSUES on a individual basis.

And to Buddahaid, I commend your actions in trying tofind that common ground that does exist in the common person today, regardless of "left or right". By pointing out the extremes, we can find the areas we concur on - and build a commonality from that.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Core Democratic Values

Life: A person's right to life can't be violated except if your life or the lives of others is threatened.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" differ here - primarily on the issues of abortion and the death penalty.

The mainstream "Conservative" stance on abortion is that life is sacred, and so abortions should not occur unless there is an imminent danger to the life of the mother, or other extreme rationale.

The mainstream "Liberal" stance states that because abortion is "before birth", it is ok to kill an unborn child, even when they could have survived outside the womb, all on the "choice" of the woman pregnant. Instead of adhering to the idea listed above, liberalist try to redefine what "Life" is.

Liberty: This includes personal freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. This is the freedom for people to gather in groups. They have their own beliefs, ideas and opinions. People also have the right to express their opinions in public.

"Conservative" - people have the right to express their opinions in public - as long as such expression does not harm or infringe the rights of others. Cases in point would be anti-war demonstrations during the Bush administration - they were frequent and had no issues - EXPECT when they crossed certain lines - such as interfering in the funerals of servicemen and woment who had come home to be laid to rest. Such interference was a harm to the family members, and even then there was some leeway given.

"Liberal" views on liberty and the free expression of ideas, beliefs and opinions can be seen via the demonstrated double standards such people and groups routinely display. For example - christian churches being excluded from "holiday parades" due to their overt religiousity, yet no fuss is put up when muslim prayer calls are broadcast over public loudspeakers at the town square in some towns in the US. Free expression of ideas? Sure, you can do that - as long as those ideas agree with liberal thoughts. Doubt me? Then why do we have such things as the refusal to discuss global warming on the basis of scientific facts? Why do we still have liberal legislators pushing the "Fairness Act" in regards to talk radio?

• Personal Freedom - the right to think and act without government control.
• Political Freedom - the right to participate in political process.
• Economic Freedom - the right to buy, sell and trade private property and the right to employment without the government interfering.

Political Freedom - your allowed to vote - but if your in a group that might vote in a way that isn't in support of the liberal agenda - for example - most military ballots - will be challenged in court in an attempt to disenfranchise you. If your voting in certain precincts, but might vote in a way that isnt't in line with certain groups, you may end up with a black panther watching to make sure you vote the way you "OUGHT" to. If your a member of a union - sure you get to vote - even as you watch your union dues go to support a candidate that may disagree with what your views are - because you don't get a say in where that money goes.

Economic Freedom - buy, sell and trade private property without government interference? Ever heard of taxes - sales tax, death tax, inheritance tax, etc etc. Both sides have their hand in that cookie jar, though one side likes that cookie more than the other. No government interference in business? Again - both sides can't keep their hands out of business - see both the Bush and Obama "economic stimulus (AKA we know own that)" packages.... And what happens if your in the medical field - and now your run by the government? Seems conservitive ideals are against that - liberals are for it....

The Pursuit of Happiness: As long as you don't interfere with others you have the right to seek happiness in your own way.

Conservative - key word is PURSUIT - you can seek it - but its not guaranteed to you. Also - as long as you don't harm others to get it.

Liberalist - If you seek it and it doesn't fall into your lap - then the government should provide it for you - via welfare, government healthcare, or other social program. The fact that it takes away from the money of others that they earned is really not a harm to them, because if they become destitute, then they can go on the government nipple to.

Common Good: Working together for the welfare of the community or the benefit of all.

Conservative - Its important to remember that this is a RIGHT - not a RESPONSIBILITY. If an individual chooses to not do so, they also should have that right, as well as the repercussions within their own community.

Liberalist - This is a responsibility - and should be controlled by the government. If you work harder than your neighbor - and can afford more than he can, you should have that extra taken away - via taxes, fees, or whatever other terms are appropriate, because you have the duty to help your fellow, regardless of whether you want to or not. This isn't really causing you any harm because you can afford it - and if you can't - then either work harder so you can support those who won't do it themsleves, or stop working and begin to feed of the government nipple...

Justice: All people should be treated fairly in both the benefits and the obligations of society. No individual or group should be favored over another person or group.

Conservative - People should be dealt with purely on the basis of merit. An ideal perhaps, but one worth striving for. The cream should rise to the top.

Liberalist - All people should be treated "fairly". Fairly means that everyone is the same. No one group should be favored - unless they are a minority. If they are a minority (defined as anyone not a white male), then favoritism should be shown, via things such as quota's, regardless of merit, because sometime in the past that person's ancestor may have been discriminated against. While some would claim this is discrimination against white men, they got all the breaks for centuries, they owe it to society to take a backseat. *The exception is all the old white liberal guys in power - because they are enlightened leaders of the cause.*

Equality: Everyone has the right to Political, Legal, Social and Economic Equality. Everyone has the right to the same treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, heritage, or economic status.

Conservative and Liberal both screw this us - check ballot access. In most areas, if your not a member of the "big two" - you have no political equality, as your not allowed to run without jumping through a number of difficult (and expensive) hoops to even get on the ballot.

Legal - both sides agree on this.

Social and Economic Equality - here is the big one.
Conservitism - you have the right to ATTAIN - solely by your own efforts - social and economic equality.
Liberalism - You have the right to be equal to everyone else. If a rich person makes $16k a month, $14k of it should be taken, and redistributed to 7 other people, so everyone has $2k a month. That is equality.

Diversity: The differences in culture, dress, language, heritage and religion are not just tolerated, but celebrated as a strength.

Conservativism - Culture, heritage and religion - yes. Dress - is a personal freedom as long as it is within socially accepted standards for the location in question. Multi-lingualism is a credit to those who partake, but as a government, there should be a "standard" language so that there is uniformity and fairness in services. In the US, historically the "national" language is English, as our founding documents are written in that language. Thus, the official language of government and its people should be English.

Liberalist - If you can't embrace that which is different than you are, you must be a member of the kkk or other wacko group that hates anyone that isn't exactly like they are. All cultures (Except for conservative American) should be celebrated. All heritages - latin, french, amerindian, african, eskimo, etc - should be celebrated. The only exception is if your white - then you should shut up and celebrate everyone elses - but don't dare ask for a "white" history month.... All religions - no matter how lacking in any foundation or proven fraudulent - such as scientology - should be celebrated. The only exception is christianity, which should be disallowed to partake in any social setting and instead repressed at every opportunity. This is not only because it supports moral and ethical thoughts that are against liberalist thinking, but also because it is the religion of choice by most evil whites.

Truth: They should expect and demand that the government not lie to them and the government should disclose information to the people. The government and its people should not lie.

Again both sides get this wrong - and examples on both sides abound where the faith has been broken. The though process for both sides seems to indicate that this works under the guise of "what they don't know we won't get in trouble for."

Popular Sovereignty: The power of the government comes from the people. The people are the ultimate authority over the government.

Conservative - While this is the case, the people's role in government should be via representative in nature, so that 51% do not rule 49%. Otherwise, mob rule would be present. Voter referendums and such should be binding on the representatives, as well as the voters should make their will known to their legislators.

Liberalist - The most votes wins. Plain and simply. Allow the mob to rule, because whatever way society goes must be the right way. The only time this isn't the case is when society moves contrary to liberal thought, at which time the court must be used to overturn the will of the people, or the political leadership must refuse to listen to the voters, thus protecting those voters from their own lack of nuance or ignorance.

Patriotism: The people or citizens show a love and devotion for their country and the values. They can show this by words or by actions.

Conservatist thought - That love and devotion is for the country and the values it has demonstrated over the past 230+ years of existence.

Liberalist thought - the love and devotion is for the country as it SHOULD be - in other words - as defined by modern liberal thought. The old values of personal responsibility, leadership, hard work can get you ahead, etc - should be cast aside so that a liberal utopia can be established. Things like the military, a responsible, informed and armed society - should be disgraced and done away with as impediments to that liberal paradise.

Constitutional Principles

Rule of Law: Both the people and the government must obey all laws.

Both sides give lip service to this - both ignore it when such laws are an impediment to their agenda's.

Separation of Powers: The executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government should be separate institutions so no one branch has all of the power.

Representative Government: People have the right to elect others to represent them in the government.

Checks and Balances: The powers of the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial, should be balanced. No one branch should be dominate. Each branch should have powers to check the actions of the other branches.


These are combined because they all can be addressed together.
Conservative thought - All three branches should provide stability to the others, with the Executive being the "lead" on where to go, the Legislative being the will of the people made manifest, and the Judiciary poised to balance questions of law in the path that is taken.
Liberalist though - The Executive should look forward and set a goal, the Legislative should push through that goal provided it is in line with liberal agendas, and the judiciary should be used to protect any liberal thought that cannot survive a review of the people.

Individual Rights: Each individual has the fundamental right to life, liberty, economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the government should protect these rights and not place undo restrictions upon them.

Conservative - Agreed in full. True conservatism dictates that the states should take a more active role in the government of their own citizenry.

Liberalist - The rights of the Federal Government into the lives of people should not be limited. After all, the Government knows whats best. You don't just have the right to happiness, you have the right to expect the government to give it to you. That may require that some of the other rights be put aside, like your right to own a gun, but really - you don't need one of those anyway now do you? If we take them all away from the people who have more than you do, we can tax them so they have the same as you, and if they have those nasty guns they might try to stop us.

Freedom of Religion: The right to practice any or no religion without persecution by the government.

Conservatist - This right exists as long as the relgiion is question and its practice harms no other, and does not infringe upon the rights of others to practice (or not) their own religion. The government has the duty to protect this right of its people.

Liberalist - The writers made a mistake when they wrote this. They meant freedom FROM religion - especially the christian one. All other religions are great, and tolerating them shows how multi-culti-nuanced one is. Tolerance of christianity however should be outlawed. It should be repressed and restrained in any and all ways. Sure all those other religions have lots of moral thoughts and stuff too, but if we can get rid of christianity, then the biggest of the players is gone and the rest will be pushed away with relative ease.

Federalism: The states and the federal government share power as outlined by the Constitution.

Both sides have lost even the pretense of giving this one lip service in todays political climate.

Civilian Control of the Military: The people control the military to preserve democracy.

Conservative - the military answers to the government - which should answer to the people.

Liberalist - The military is evil, because its violent and we would be much better off if everyone sat around a campfire and sang coom-bye-ahhh (but without the "my lord" part as that implies religion - YECH!) We really should get rid of all the military - think how much money we could spend on social programs. And if we didn't have big bad weapons, the world would see how peace loving and friendly we really are, and they would love us again and we could all share a big group hug and live happily ever after. We don't need a military because all the "bad guys" just need to not feel so threatened by us to start being nice and good. They have only been "bad" because of us.

************************************************** ******
This is in many ways generalizations, but also generally true.
************************************************** ******

That's some very crafty writing there. The way you wrote it, I'd be a hardcore conservative, when in reality I'm anything but.