American Conservatives: Why Not Admit You Are Liberals? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14321017
American conservatism is based on ideas like free enterprise, the right of the individual, the responsibility of the individual and state's rights. It respects freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. All of these ideas are based on classical liberalism.

Why then do American conservatives not call themselves liberals?
#14321190
American Conservatives: Why Not Admit You Are Liberals?

Because American conservatives are 'market liberals' - and American liberals are 'social liberals'.

Basically, American conservatives are concerned with Money (and the private power that it spawns), and American liberals are concerned with correcting the social injustice that inevitably exists when people are only concerned with Money.

American conservatives (market liberals) believe it's up to the 'rugged individual' to carve out an existence for themselves. If this means exploiting someone else or an entire class, so be it. They are conservatives because they want to return to the days when Americans were indeed 'rugged individuals' (1800 to 1929). The Great Depression put an end to that. They are now, mostly, neo-liberals, which is still an economic ideology which cares little for 'social injustice', but it also cares little for laissez-faire capitalism, instead, they use govt as a way of enforcing 'crony capitalism'.

American liberals (social liberals) want to balance economic liberty (the "market") with civil and political liberties. They want the government to side with the less economically powerful 'little guy' when the more economically powerful 'capitalist' exploits them. American liberalism sees the 'communal good' as a check and balance against the private individuals 'freedom' to exploit an entire group of people. They do this by addressing poverty, health care, education, regulating business practices, and supporting unions.

I'm a liberal because I think 'private power' needs to be checked and balanced with 'public power'. Our whole govt was set up to check and balance power. The House of Representatives were supposed to represent the public interests (the "peasants") and the Senate was supposed to represent private interests (the "aristocracy") and the President (the "king") was supposed to check and balance both with the veto power.

etc etc etc....

I gotta go.
#14325388
The other funny/sad thing about American conservatives is that they call themselves Republicans. There's nothing more liberal than republicanism.
To be truly conservative, you would have to be a Monarchist - a believer in the "Ancient Regime".
Classical conservatism can be summed up in one word -- Hierarchy -- and Conservatism is 'reactionary' in it's defense of hierarchy against egalitarianism. If there was no revolt from the lower class, there would be no need to 'react'.

If you really want to see the world as a true conservative, you would have to go back to pre-Christian times, because Christianity was the first liberal baby-step toward the French revolution. Before Christianity there was only the Master/Slave mentality. There was no need for Conservatism...because there was no liberalism.

The slave class latched onto the Christian religion because it preached that the master class's attributes (power, cruelty, gluttony , selfishness) were evil. While the poor's attributes (meekness, humility, deference) were good. Christianity preached a 'brotherhood of man', where all people are 'equal before God', where the master class was bound for hell because of their gluttonous/cruel lifestyle.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Jesus

The Master class co-opted Christianity by becoming Christian themselves and then folding the Catholic church into the power structure and all looked copacetic.

Here's what a good Christian king had to say to a bunch of "rustics"...
“You wretches (peasants) are detestable both on land and on sea. You seek equality with the lords, but you are unworthy to live. Give this message to your fellows: rustics you are, and rustics you will always be. You will remain in bondage, not as before, but incomparably harsher. For as long as we live we will strive to suppress you, and your misery will be an example to posterity.” - Richard II during the Peasants' Revolt in 1381

Then along came the Protestant Reformation; with its "private interpretation" of the Scriptures and then, of course, the Enlightenment, which were two major milestones on the way to the French Revolution.

The Godfather of the conservative movement, Edmund Burke, said the real objective of the French Revolution was "to break all those connections, natural and civil, that regulate and hold together the community by a chain of subordination; to raise soldiers against their officers; servants against their masters; tradesmen against their customers; employees against their employers; tenants against their landlords; curates against their bishops; and children against their parents."
#14636727
Political Interest wrote:American conservatism is based on ideas like free enterprise, the right of the individual, the responsibility of the individual and state's rights. It respects freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. All of these ideas are based on classical liberalism.

Why then do American conservatives not call themselves liberals?


If I'm to accept your argument, which boils down to:

A=B because of c, d, and e

then

B=A because of c, d, and e

Then if conservatives are like liberals, then liberals are like conservatives. So why don't liberals admit they're conservative?
#14636731
so_crates wrote:If I'm to accept your argument, which boils down to:

A=B because of c, d, and e

then

B=A because of c, d, and e

Then if conservatives are like liberals, then liberals are like conservatives. So why don't liberals admit they're conservative?


This is getting boring. You seem to be confusing four separate things:

1. Liberalism, which is the current ruling ideology in the developed world,
2. Liberals, which is a pejorative term used by US conservatives to insult anyone more progressive or to the left of them.
3. Socialism, which is when the means of production are publicly owned, and
4. Communism, a classless state that only arrives once socialism is the ruling international ideology.

Of course, each one of these things is actually an umbrella term for many other ideologies, but this is a basic primer for how these four words are used on this forum.

US conservatives and US liberals are both smaller groups within a larger group called liberalism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

    Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.
#14636734
Yes, this is getting boring.

I'm arguing from the OP's position. According to the OP:

See spot run logic would tell you

If A (conservatism) = B (liberalism)

Then

B (liberalism) = A (conservatism)

So, continuing with his line of thinking:

If conservatives should admit they're liberal, then liberals should admit they're conservative.
#14636751
It further shows a flaw in reasoning.

It take a couple of characteristics both share and then tries to conflate both.

A dog has fur, a tail, and four legs

A cat has fur, a tail, and four legs

So we should call cats dogs

This is illogical, even though both are in a metaset called mammals and another called animals


Lutherans worship in churches, sing hymns, and believe in Jesus Christ

Catholics worship in churches, sing hymns, and believe in Jesus Christ

So Lutherans are Catholics.

This is illogical even though both belong in a metaset called religion.


A Chevy has a motor, brakes, and four tires

A Ford has a motor, brakes, and four tires

So a Chevy is a Ford.

This is illogical even though both belong in a metaset called automobiles, then another called machines.


A man has two eyes, two hands, and a heart.

A woman has two eyes, two hands, and a heart.

So we should call women men.

This is illogical even though both belong to metaset called humans, then primates, then mammals, then animals

See the flaw?
Last edited by so_crates on 29 Dec 2015 18:10, edited 1 time in total.
#14636752
Pants-of-dog wrote:Wow, you totally missed the point that consevatives are a small subgroup within liberalism.


And you totally missed the point that his reasoning doesn't follow.

You don't take two or three similarities and try and conflate two disparate things.
#14636758
Dagoth Ur wrote:Its funny watching you try to squirm out of admitting that you're a liberal.


It's fun watching you use faulty reasoning to make false assumptions.

I further notice you didn't attack the reasoning and presented a ad homnim argument, is that because you can't attack the argument?

So when are liberals going to admit they're conservative?

Want to be the first?
#14636764
Dagoth Ur wrote:Liberals aren't conservatives. They are left-liberals. You are their right wing. But hey don't let me get in the way of you totally not understanding idology.


You apparently skimmed, because, as I said, I was using the OP's reasoning.

You want to complain about not understanding political ideologies, I'd suggest you take it up with the OP.

And by all means, get snarky. It shows me you've conceded.
#14636769
Dagoth Ur wrote:Lol I am snarky by default. Which doesn't change that you are still a liberal who for some reason protests the label.


If I'm to apply the OP's and your logic:

The simple truth, which is equal valid (since your hijacking the OP's) argument is that your a conservative who for some reason protests the label.

Snarky by default? Then I presume you concede by default also.
#14636771
Dagoth Ur wrote:In a lot of way yes, I am a conservative. A conservative COMMUNIST. I don't protest being called a communist at all. But you protest being called a liberal, which you are.


But you protest being called a conservative, right?

Again I notice you find no flaw in the reasoning, but make efforts to divert from the fact the OP equated two unequal things.

Yeah that is what the law says. What is your poi[…]

Made in Israel

Yes it has. I'm just done with you people. I po[…]

Well, let me explain my reasoning when I say tha[…]

How ISIS replenishes its ranks

@Palmyrene I'm making it easier for him. If he[…]