Conservative vs Liberal Beliefs

[Trey of Diamonds]

I ran across this list of issues and how Conservatives and Liberals view them. I would like to know if you agree with the list and where you fall on each issue.

Source - Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs

PART 1

CONSERVATIVES - believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS - believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

THE ISSUES:

Abortion

Conservative
Human life begins at conception. Abortion is the murder of a human being. Nobody has the right to murder a human being.

Support legislation to prohibit partial birth abortions, called the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" (partial birth abortion - the killing of an unborn baby of at least 20 weeks by pulling it out of the birth canal with forceps, but leaving the head inside. An incision is made in the back of the baby's neck and the brain tissue is suctioned out. The head is then removed from the uterus.)

Liberal
A fetus is not a human life.

The decision to have an abortion is a personal choice of a woman regarding her own body and the government should stay out of it. Women should be guaranteed the right to a safe and legal abortion, including partial birth abortion.

Affirmative action

Conservative
People should be admitted to schools and hired for jobs based on their ability. It is unfair to use race as a factor in the selection process. Reverse-discrimination is not a solution for racism.

Liberal
Due to prevalent racism in the past, minorities were deprived of the same education and employment opportunities as whites. We need to make up for that.

Support affirmative action based on the belief that America is still a racist society. Minorities still lag behind whites in all statistical measurements of success. Also, the presence of minorities creates diversity.

Death penalty

Conservative
The death penalty is a punishment that fits the crime; it is neither ‘cruel' nor ‘unusual'. Executing a murderer is the appropriate punishment for taking an innocent life.

Liberal
We should abolish the death penalty. The death penalty is inhumane and is ‘cruel and unusual' punishment. It does not deter crime. Imprisonment is the appropriate punishment. Every execution risks killing an innocent person.

Economy

Conservative
The free market system, competitive capitalism, and private enterprise afford the widest opportunity and the highest standard of living for all. Free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs and higher standards of living than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.

Liberal
Favor a market system in which government regulates the economy. We need government to protect us against big businesses. Unlike the private sector, the government is motivated by public interest. We need government regulation to level the playing field.

Education - school vouchers

Conservative
School vouchers will give all parents the right to choose good schools for their children, not just those who can afford private schools. Parents (who pay the taxes that fund the schools) should decide how and where to educate their child.

Liberal
School vouchers are untested experiments. We need to focus on more funding for existing public schools -to raise teacher salaries and reduce class size.

the Environment

Conservative
Desire clean water, clean air and a clean planet, just like everyone else. However, extreme environmental policies destroy jobs and damage the economy.

Changes in global temperatures are natural over long periods of time. So far, science has not shown that humans can affect permanent change to the earth's temperature.

Liberal
Conservatives don't care about protecting the environment.

Industrial growth harms the environment.

Global warming is caused by an increased production of carbon dioxide. The U.S. is a major contributor to global warming because it produces 25% of the world's carbon dioxide. The U.S. should enact laws to significantly reduce that amount.

Gun control

Conservative
The Second Amendment gives the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws do not thwart criminals. You have a right to defend yourself against criminals. More guns mean less crime.

Liberal
The Second Amendment gives no individual the right to own a gun, but allows the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Guns kill people. Guns kill children.

Health care

Conservative
Free healthcare provided by the government (socialized medicine) means that everyone will get the same poor-quality healthcare. The rich will continue to pay for superior healthcare, while all others will receive poor-quality free healthcare from the government. Health care should remain privatized.

Support Healthcare Spending Accounts.

Liberal
Support universal government-supervised health care. There are millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance. They are being deprived of a basic right to healthcare.

Homeland security

Conservative
Wary of parts of the Patriot Act

Liberal
Oppose the Patriot Act

Immigration

Conservative
Support legal immigration at current numbers, but do not support illegal immigration. Government should enforce immigration laws. Oppose President Bush's amnesty plan for illegal immigrants. Those who break the law by entering the U.S. illegally should not have the same rights as those who obey the law by entering legally.

If there were a decrease in cheap, illegal immigrant labor, employers would have to substitute higher-priced domestic employees, legal immigrants, or perhaps increase mechanization.

Liberal
Support legal immigration and increasing the number of legal immigrants permitted to enter the U.S. each year. Support blanket amnesty for current illegal immigrants.

Believe that regardless of how they came to the U.S., illegal immigrants deserve:
- U.S. government financial aid for college tuition.
- visas for spouse/children to come to the U.S. Families shouldn't be separated.

Illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans do not want to do.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

PART 2

Religion

Conservative
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This prevents the government from establishing a national church. However, it does not prevent God from being acknowledged in schools and government buildings.

Oppose the removal of symbols of Christian heritage from public and government spaces.

Government should not interfere with religion and religious freedom.

Liberal
Support the separation of church and state. Religious expression has no place in government.

Support the removal of all references to God in public and government spaces.

Religion should not interfere with government.

Same-sex marriage

Conservative
Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Opinions differ on support for the creation of a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Believe that requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others who believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Liberal
Marriage should be legal for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples to ensure equal rights for all.

All individuals, regardless of their sex, have the right to marry.

Believe that prohibiting same-sex citizens from marrying denies them of their civil rights. Opinions differ on whether this issue is equal to civil rights for African Americans.

Social Security

Conservative
The current Social Security system is in serious financial trouble. Changes are necessary because the U.S. will be unable to maintain the current system it in the future. Support proposal to allow a portion of Social Security dollars withheld to be put into an account chosen by the individual, not the government.

Liberal
Generally oppose change to the current Social Security system. Opinions vary on whether the current system is in financial trouble. Changing the current system will cause people to lose their Social Security benefits.

Support a cap on Social Security payments to the wealthy.

Taxes

Conservative
Support lower taxes and a smaller government. Lower taxes create more incentive for people to work, save, invest, and engage in entrepreneurial endeavors. Money is best spent by those who earn it.

Liberal
Support higher taxes and a larger government. High taxes enable the government to do good and create jobs. We need high taxes for social welfare programs, to provide for the poor. We can't afford to cut taxes.

United Nations (UN)

Conservative
The UN has repeatedly failed in its essential mission: to preserve world peace. The wars, genocide and human rights abuses of the majority of its member states (and the UN's failure to stop them) prove this point. History shows that the United States, not the UN, is the global force for spreading freedom, prosperity, tolerance and peace. The U.S. should never subvert its national interests to those of the UN.

Liberal
The United States has a moral and a legal obligation to support the United Nations (UN). The UN can be effective in promoting peace and human rights. The U.S. should not have acted in Iraq without UN approval. The U.S. should submit its national interests to the greater good (as defined by the UN).

War in Iraq

Conservative
This was a preemptive strike to protect the U.S. All intelligence indicated that Saddam Hussein possessed and used weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in the past and was prepared to use them again. He would not allow United Nations weapons inspectors to confirm his claim that he had destroyed his WMDs.
A democracy can succeed in Iraq if the people are given the opportunity to create one. All people want to live in freedom.

Liberal
This is Bush's war for oil. Saddam Hussein was no real threat. We have not found weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), so Saddam did not have any. President Bush lied about WMDs and the dangers posed by Saddam. We should have given the UN more time. We have alienated the rest of the world by our unilateral action (‘go it alone' attitude).

A democracy can't succeed in Iraq. Not everyone wants to live in a democracy.

War on terror/terrorism

Conservative
The world toward which the Militant Islamists strive cannot peacefully co-exist with the Western world. In the last decade, Militant Islamists have repeatedly attacked Americans and American interests here and abroad. The terrorists must be stopped and destroyed.

Liberal
9/11 was caused by America's arrogant foreign policy. America needs to stop angering other countries. The threat posed by terrorism is exaggerated by President Bush for his own political advantage.

Welfare

Conservative
Oppose long-term welfare. We need to provide opportunities to make it possible for poor and low-income workers to become self-reliant. It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage a person to become self-reliant, rather than keeping them dependent on the government for money.

Liberal
Support welfare. We need welfare to provide for the poor. Conservatives oppose welfare because they are not compassionate toward the poor. We have welfare to bring fairness to American economic life. Without welfare, life below the poverty line would be intolerable.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Here is a list of just the issues to make it easier to respond to each one.

Abortion
Affirmative action
Death penalty
Economy
Education - school vouchers
the Environment
Gun control
Health care
Homeland security
Immigration
Religion
Same-sex marriage
Social Security
Taxes
United Nations (UN)
War in Iraq
War on terror/terrorism
Welfare

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only thing that people need to know is that conservative values destroyed America.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The only thing that people need to know is that conservative values destroyed America.

The insane drones yell "that was fun, let's do the same thing again" - these are called "neo-cons."

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The only thing that people need to know is that conservative values destroyed America.

Generalizations such as this are more destructive than anything else.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Generalizations such as this are more destructive than anything else.

One can only hope.

 

[Oberon]

I ran across this list of issues and how Conservatives and Liberals view them. I would like to know if you agree with the list and where you fall on each issue.

Source - Conservative vs. Liberal Beliefs

PART 1

CONSERVATIVES - believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

The problem here is your liberal/conservative dichotomy. For example, I call myself a classical liberal, because my beliefs are quite similar to what liberalism meant for centuries prior to when it came to be associated with the left. Now I am probably closest to a "libertarian" but I disagree with them on a great many issues to.

"Conservatives" want to conserve traditional politics and morality. I am not a conservative. However, by all modern usage of the word liberal, I'm not a liberal either.

I absolutely believe in capitalism (not to be confused with an anarchically free market) and that "that government which governs least governs best."

When it comes to moral issues, I find I sometimes share the same ideas as the conservatives, and often I don't. I don't believe in the death penalty. I believe that all drugs should be legal. I am absolutely opposed to abortion, because the only scientific definition of humanity (as belonging to the species human) applies to a fetus, and I don't believe it is right to make arbitrary decisions on when something is human and when it isn't.

I believe that gay marriage is fine and should be legalized everywhere. Two males who are in love and committed have a far more "marriage-like" bond then a man and a woman who get drunk in Las Vegas, end up married one day and divorced the next.

I am absolutely against control. I believe in criminal background checks prior to purchase, but the areas with the most gun control typically also have greater crime. The problem with gun control is that it often ensures that law-abiding citizens will not be able to protect themselves, but that criminals will. This same type of thinking is what was behind the failed idea of prohibition. When you make something illegal, only people willing to break the law get access to it. With gun control, those are exactly the type of people we don't want having access.

As for the environment, I go where the science goes. Currently, we simply don't know enough. Our computer models continually fail to be able to predict past whether. Scientists predicted global cooling in the 70s, global warming in the 90s, and now "climate change" will actually cause both.
We should try to protect the environment, if only out of self-interest. However, as the history of Yellowstone park shows, we don't know anyway of doing this.

 

[JMorris]

The difference between left and right of center … originated in the French parliament. The people left of center were liberals; the people right of center were conservatives. Broadly speaking. And generally speaking, people on … the right of center, are interested in property values, property, property rights. The rights and the rights of property. And generally speaking again – it's all generalized – the left-of-center people are more concerned with humans and human beings and human concerns; to the care of humans, not the care and worry about property rights. That's generally been true.
-George Carlin

ahhh George does it again!

so what are more important property/money or humans? hmmm.....

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems

This may be true of Libertarians, but its certainly not true of Republicans. Republicans arent interested in solving problems, not unless you have the money to interest them. Their main concern is their own wallet, and their buddies wallet. if you dont have the money to pique their interest, then you are ignored.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

actually, a more accurate statement would be "Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems created by conservatives".

 

[BucephalusBB]

There is a word for each group here, but when I look at the issues I see myself switching from left to right.. So neither of the groups mean anything to me I guess.

 

[Nepenthe]

The labels are too sharply divided into blacks and whites; there's plenty of overlap there. Sure, most of my political views would fall onto the liberal side but I don't think that "a fetus isn't a human life". And the definition in the OP on the war on terrorism can certainly include both; they're not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of conservatives, libertarians (or classical liberals as Oberon said) that might oppose capital punishment or even support abortion rights. The lines are too fuzzy.

I am absolutely opposed to abortion, because the only scientific definition of humanity (as belonging to the species human) applies to a fetus, and I don't believe it is right to make arbitrary decisions on when something is human and when it isn't.

Odd, since you make an arbitrary distinction in that very paragraph. A fetus is hardly "the only scientific definition of humanity". The DNA that defines our humanity is present at conception. I'm not sure why you'd push the defining point of humanhood at the end of the eighth week of gestation.

As for the environment, I go where the science goes. Currently, we simply don't know enough. Our computer models continually fail to be able to predict past whether.

No question that the science is in its infancy, but I also go where the science goes and there's plenty of evidence climate change is a real issue.

Scientists predicted global cooling in the 70s...

No, they didn't. Bad science reporting in the 70s perpetrated this myth.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The problem here is your liberal/conservative dichotomy.

Great post except for one thing, the liberal conservative/dichotomy isn't mine, it came from the source I quoted. Personally, it sounds like we are very close in our views but there are a few differences here and there. I like the term moderate instead of Liberal or Conservative.

 

[Oberon]

Great post except for one thing, the liberal conservative/dichotomy isn't mine, it came from the source I quoted. Personally, it sounds like we are very close in our views but there are a few differences here and there. I like the term moderate instead of Liberal or Conservative.

Ok. Then I stand corrected. The problem is with the dichotomy of your source.

 

[Oberon]

Odd, since you make an arbitrary distinction in that very paragraph. A fetus is hardly "the only scientific definition of humanity".

I didn't say it is. I said it FITS INTO the only scientific definition of humanity, that of membership to a particular species.

No question that the science is in its infancy, but I also go where the science goes and there's plenty of evidence climate change is a real issue.

No there isn't. The climate has been changing for thousands of years. It was warmer hundreds of years ago.

No, they didn't. Bad science reporting in the 70s perpetrated this myth.

Bad science reporting blew it out of proportion, but they didn't make it up.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The problem is with the dichotomy of your source.

Agreed.

 

[Nepenthe]

I didn't say it is. I said it FITS INTO the only scientific definition of humanity, that of membership to a particular species.

What's the distinction? Again, the scientific definition of humanity, that of membership to a particular species, is applicable prior to the eighth week.

No there isn't. The climate has been changing for thousands of years. It was warmer hundreds of years ago.

Of course there is plenty of scientific evidence. Of course the climate has been changing for thousands of years, and it was warmer hundreds of years ago- how is that evidence against climate change today? Noone is denying there are cyclical fluctuations, but the fact is that global average temperatures have been rising by about 0.74 degrees C over the past century, and the increased temperatures have been greater over the last 25 years, and 11 of the hottest years on record have been during the last 12 years. The fact that natural factors were responsible for a warmer climate centuries ago does not invalidate current anthropogenic climate change.

Bad science reporting blew it out of proportion, but they didn't make it up.

You wrote:

Scientists predicted global cooling in the 70s..

And that's just incorrect. There was a cooling trend from the 40s to the 70s, but the scientific community was well aware that arriving at a scientific concensus based on such limited data was unwarranted. Global cooling was never predicted in peer reviewed scientific journals, but was an exaggeration and misinterpretation from the popular press at the time. Noone's saying the media made it up, but they did report falsehoods based on misinterpreting what the scientific community was actually reporting.

 

[Oberon]

What's the distinction? Again, the scientific definition of humanity, that of membership to a particular species, is applicable prior to the eighth week.

You implied that I said a fetus "is the only scientific definition of humanity." I merely said it fits into it. The difference is the former means I am implying that humanity is defined by a being a fetus, the other that a fetus fits into the definition.

And I know it is applicable prior to the eighth week. It is applicable at to a zygote. That's my point.

Of course there is plenty of scientific evidence. Of course the climate has been changing for thousands of years, and it was warmer hundreds of years ago- how is that evidence against climate change today?

The question is not "is the climate changing" but "is it our fault, and should we do something about it?" There isn't plenty of evidence for that, nor is there a scholarly consensus (see, for example, Home - Global Warming Petition Project).

Noone is denying there are cyclical fluctuations, but the fact is that global average temperatures have been rising by about 0.74 degrees C over the past century,

The fact is we only have reliable records going back about a century, and in many places on the globe we don't even have that.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Ok, I'm going to start with the terms Conservative and Liberal and get the the issues later.

CONSERVATIVES - believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

With the definition of Conservative from the source material I can say I fall into this category very easily. I believe in all the things listed but I don't think my definitions of these things are in line with popular opinion. Take Traditional Amerivan Values. I would define this as how founding fathers such as Jefferson and Franklin felt about government and I believe in those. But I also understand most people mistakenly take todays revisionist view of what American Values are and I don't believe in most of those. Another is Free Market Economy. I believe in a free market system but I don't believe that means laissez faire.

LIBERALS - believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people's problems.

Here I have problems, its like I believe in these things but only in moderation. I think the government should take action when needed to ensure equal opportunity. The duty of the State is to seek solutions to social ills, but those solutions need not always be government actions. Protecting civil liberties, individual and human rights are a given. The government can't guarantee no one will be in need. I do think people are basically good but I don't think the government can or should try and solve all peoples problems.

So what does that make me? A conservative liberal or a liberal conservative or something else entirely? This is why I don't like labels.

 

[Nepenthe]

The question is not "is the climate changing" but "is it our fault, and should we do something about it?" There isn't plenty of evidence for that, nor is there a scholarly consensus (see, for example, Home - Global Warming Petition Project).

Sure there is. And linking to an OISM petition is hardly a scholarly or scientifically accurate concensus. They are not peer reviewed, and the National Academy of Sciences has gone on record with:

"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."​

Only 2,100 of the 3,100 (there may be more now) signers of the petition were phycisists, geophycisists, climatologists, meteorologists, or otherwise disciplined in the climate change sciences. And only about 24 were actually specialists in specifically relevant disciplines like meteorology, glaciology and oceanograpy. The petition is a fraud.

The evidence and scientific support for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. Why link to OISM and exclude real scientific organizations that are peer reviewed and have done the actual leg work? Why reference a political libertarian advocacy group and ignore the real scientific researchers who have reached a scientific concensus- groups like IPCC, EASA, ICAETS, AAAS, ESF, AGU, WMO, EGU, USNRS, and on and on and on....

I tend to lean towards these scientific organizations rather than political propogandists like the Heartland Inst. which released a list of anthropogenic climate change skeptics. Yet 45 of those on their list had no idea they were even included as coauthors and actually did accept man-made climate change. Several other scientists requested they be removed from the list.

 

[Oberon]

"The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."​

​

I have reviewed the science. We simply do not know enough, and we have a history of making decisions based on scare tactics which have disastrous effects. Banning DDT based on faulty information killed millions. I can't support spending billions or trillions to limit are effects on the environment when we don't know enough to say what those effects are.