What makes a person a "liberal" or "conservative"?

SPC Charles Brown — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:40:31 -0400

The political dividing line is made up of "liberals" and "conservatives". If a person acts politically on what they believe and it goes against the "norm" he or she is deemed to be a liberal. As an individual I vote my conscience this in my opinion makes me an independent. The political parties continue to trot out the same cast of characters, albeit with different names but all with the same agenda, to screw the little guy. So can someone or anyone enlighten me as to why someone who doesn't vote republican is automatically considered to be liberal. Help me and others interested to understand why this is so!

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member, MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca, SSG Robert Burns, LTC Private RallyPoint Member, SSG V. Michelle Woods, SGT Private RallyPoint Member, SGM Matthew Quick, @1LT Eric Rosa.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2015 4:07 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:07:51 -0400

Believing in what works and not changing it for soccer moms.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 30 at 2015 5:21 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:21:52 -0400

Excellent question ... I look forward to hearing others explain this.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 30 at 2015 6:55 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:55:22 -0400

Words mean things.

I know I sound like a broken record here (because I say this a lot), but that's what this is really about.

"Conservatives" as a concept is about maintaining the status quo. To conserve, to maintain, to avoid change.

"Liberals" are the anti-thesis to that. The term itself is often a misnomer, as it is not applied universally.

President Reagan made "Liberal" a dirty word. What he was actually referring to was "Progressives" or people wanting to change policy.

Some policies need to be changed. Some policies are downright stupid. Other policies are good, and should be maintained.

Using the term "Conservative" or "Liberal" as an attack, is a logical fallacy, specifically known as the Ad Hominem attack (to the man). This fallacy doesn't work, because it avoids the actual issue, and goes after the speaker.

Self Identifying as a Conservative or a Liberal just means that an individual likes a specific "party platter of goods" more than another one. Believe it or not, the two sides agree on more than they disagree. Generally the disagreement is not on the goal, just on the method.

As an example. Neither side wants to see People die in the streets. The "Liberal" side often (not always) states that the Government is the best means of avoiding that. The "Conservative" side says that the Individual (and by extension the Free Market) is the best means of avoiding that. Goal is same, approach is different.

Now, what happens is that individuals are all different. We all have our key issues. Some of us have issues that are so important to us that it will sway us onto a specific "party platter of goods" like the Gun Control or Birth Control (single voter issues). When that happens, you becomes associated with one side or the other (as a form of attack, rather than as self identification).

Response by MSgt Steve Miller made Mar 31 at 2015 12:26 PM

MSgt Steve Miller — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:26:05 -0400

This question has been well answered by Sgt Aaron Kennedy and therefore requires little more. However, allow me to ask a few questions that may cause further critical thinking.

Do you believe you need the government? Personally, I see the government as an institution meant to hold up the constitution of the United States and keep the people safe. That's it!!!

Do you believe that the people should fear the government, or should the government fear the people?

Response by Sgt James Morse made Mar 31 at 2015 1:04 PM

Sgt James Morse — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:04:34 -0400

To say that the political dividing line is made up of "liberals" and "conservatives" over-simplifies the *political* nature of the question. Ideologically, people are grouped into multiple significant groups: conservative, liberal, progressive, socialist, libertarian, etc. People bandy about the terms "liberal" and "conservative" so much, and usually as a means of attacking people of an opposing ideology, that what they ACTUALLY mean has been largely perverted. This is a largely Progressive tactic; in their view, the ends always justifies the means, so intentionally obfuscating actual meanings is a perfectly legitimate way to accomplish a goal. "Honest" debate is avoided as often as possible. Progressives seem to have perfected the skill in the US, but the other ideological factions have made frequent use of it, as well.

"Talking points" are an excellent example of this theory in action. Politicians will simply parrot the same lines, in roughly the same language, over and over again even when what they are saying is patently untrue. The political parties spend a great deal of money on psychology and social engineering expertise for the purpose of developing talking points, with the core expectation being that, if the public hears something often enough, from the people they SHOULD be able to trust, and reported by organizations who have an ethical mandate, they will eventually come to accept it, if not actually believe it themselves.

On that note: I wholeheartedly agree with Sgt Aaron Kennedy about the idea that "words matter." I object to the statement that ad hominem attacks are ineffective in any political discourse: they are the very thing that all political campaigns now depend on to sway public opinion. I would agree if he had said that ad hominem attacks are generally completely irrelevant, but relevance was left behind by politicians a long time ago. I suspect that was what he meant, so I will leave that there.

As for my personal view of "liberal v. Conservative," I think there is a very simple way to differentiate between the views.

Ideologically, conservatives believe in Constitutional primacy, limited government, and free-market economic policy. Morally, conservatives believe in th e

Response by SSG Byron Napoleon made Mar 31 at 2015 10:01 PM

SSG Byron Napoleon — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:01:32 -0400

My grandmother raised me and when I was 10yrs old, she told me two things that I still hold to this day.... One day I was being lazy and she pulled me by the arm and said to me... Your neighbors were not put next to you to put food on your table and the government was not created to put money in your pocket. As I grew up I began to realize what she meant by those two statements. Those words got me to work for wages at age 10. To this day, I work hard for everything I have. I never let anybody's perception of me deter me from achieving my goal. I may fail, I may succeed but I will continue to work hard to achieve my goals. I will credit my success to those who helped me achieve them, but I will not blame anyone for my failures. I guess the opposite of that would be liberalism. I maybe wrong, but when you see every liberal blame everyone else for his or her failures and credit himself or herself for every success, you can only make that conclusion. Now, to answer your question... conservatives believes that achievements comes with individual effort not the government. Conservatives believes all obstacles can be overcome. Liberals believe that government is there to remove all obstacles so you do not need to work hard to achieve anything. If you fail, the government is there to pull you up and if you can't get up it will do it for you. Bad thing about that is... human nature tends to take the easy way out. If we all take the easy way out, we would never rise if we all face a big obstacle because no one has learned to overcome it.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 2:32 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 14:32:14 -0400

SPC Charles Brown: I like that you phrased your question as what makes one lib/con as opposed to Rep/Dem. The political parties in America do not properly represent the views of the populace, but merely an approximation of the strongest polarizing dimensions, an unfortunately common product of a two-party system.

I see two potential interpretations of your question: You could be asking what are the views that, if held by an individual, would make a label of 'liberal' be accurate, or you could be asking what causes someone to hold those views in the first place.

The first question would dovetail nicely into Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS's answer, with one important caveat: What the current definitions of those two terms means is quite a bit different from what they traditionally meant. To give you an idea what I mean, environmentalism was long considered a *conservative* position, as one would expect from such a classical definition -- remember that it was Nixon that created the EPA.

(Full disclosure: It's pretty well known that I'm a liberal [though not a Democrat], so I certainly won't fault you for reading the first question part with that in mind, as that part is much more prone to opinion creeping in. I do try to be much more focused on the science for the second question part.)

Instead, the modern interpretation of 'conservative', at least in America, has become intertwined with two items: big business interests on financial matters, and (mostly) Christian interests on social matters. This arrangement actually results in some strange outcomes, as many conservatives today are against any form of government regulations (as essentially required by laissez-faire policies from the big business side), *except* when it comes to their pet issues, which commonly involve using force and law to restrict minorities, unions, other religions, or women's reproductive rights to name but a few (as required from interventionalist and religious influence on the social side).

Meanwhile, the modern interpretation of 'liberal' has also largely been shaped by conservative side, and is used as a shorthand slander for "not us". The conservative side has become tribalistic over the past few decades, as it was very effective in mobilizing the base, so this is not entirely unexpected (and I want to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with motivating the base that way - it's just an observation), but I suspect that is why you felt you were being automatically labeled a liberal simply by not being a conservative. Liberals simply lack that unified voice to combat the message.

So, when you hear comments like another one here that said: "Liberals view the Government as the answer to all things, and the collective. Conservatives believe in the individual, and that other than National defense government is the problem, and NOT the solution.", it's shockingly dishonest on not just Liberals, but on Conservatives as well. Liberals view the Government as a legitimate means to addressing society-level problems, but certainly not the only one or one that is an answer to all issues. Conservatives are often fine with government programs and largesse that help them, but quickly shift when such aid goes to any group they deem unworthy regardless of merit or social needs.

And this actually leads to the second question/interpretation.

There has actually been a decent amount of social science research on political attitudes. We know that political attitudes can have genetic components (as demonstrated by Twin studies) and cultural components (where you were raised, in what kind of family, family's religious stance, etc.). And we certainly know they can have experiential components (whether you've lost a job, been mugged, or simply were a member of certain minority groups).

Some of the best work is from Jonathan Haidt, who developed what is known as Moral Foundations Theory. He categorized six dimensions (sometimes called "taste buds") of how people evaluate the world, and found that in multiple strong studies a relatively consistent pattern emerged between liberals and conservatives. Those dimensions are (from Wikipedia):
* Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
* Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)
* Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
* Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)
* Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)
* Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

The basic finding is that liberals tend to value Care, Fairness, and Liberty *slightly* higher than (or even equal to) conservatives, but conservatives value Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity *far* higher than liberals. This has held when balancing for many potential confounding factors.

But, of course, there's one more wrinkle (isn't there always?). It's often important to evaluate policies rooted in fact from those rooted in preference, and the pragmatic view from the idealistic view.

For example, a fiscal policy has aspects that can be measured objectively. How will [Policy X] impact GDP? Poverty? Private Savings Rates? Trickle-Down Economics was essentially a fraud from moment one, while MMT is the most accurate (or perhaps I should say *least inaccurate*) National-level economic model for a Fiat currency. But, importantly, once you've assessed the factual level, there's still a preference level to be discussed. If you had two economic models that were roughly equal, but one provided more funding for, say, subsidies in healthcare for the poor while the other provided a tax cut that benefits more well-off individuals, those moral dimensions come into play even more strongly, directing liberals and conservatives to different outcomes.

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 4 at 2016 4:36 PM

Maj John Bell — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 16:36:44 -0500

I think the labels are easy ways to decide who is in your tribe and who is not. But I doubt if anyone can be labeled 100% one or the other. Don't label a person, engage them in a respectful, calm articulate discussion about a mutually significant issue. You might even make a friend, even if they are an idiot.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Mar 25 at 2016 10:03 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:03:49 -0400

What made me such a liberal was seeing the extreme poverty all around the world. I can't look at that and say they need to help themselves, we need to help them any way we can, because they cannot. This all kind of came from when I saw a 5 year old girl in the Cairo slums looking through trash cans for food. She lived with her family in a graveyard because there is no social safety net in Egypt. She had no hope of ever escaping that life, no way of getting out. We as humans have to take care of people.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Mar 25 at 2016 3:13 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:13:14 -0400

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 3:42 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:42:40 -0400

Chris Rock "anyone who makes up their mind (where they stand) BEFORE even hearing the issue is a fool. Some things, like violent crime, I am conservative. Prostitution.. I am liberal"