1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Freedom vs Equality: Conservative vs Liberal

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by !Fluffy!, Jun 5, 2007.

  1. !Fluffy!

    !Fluffy! Lacking Common Sense

    There are two very good analyses of the Liberal vs Conservative conversation out there. George Will makes the case for understanding the two in terms of freedom and equality. Phil Waring is skeptical and tends to make it more a pragmatic concern ("what's in it for me") - which strikes a chord but just seems a bit cynical.

    The Case for Conservatism
    By George Will
    The Washington Post, Thursday, May 31, 2007
    WASHINGTON -- Conservatism's recovery of its intellectual equilibrium requires a confident explanation of why America has two parties and why the conservative one is preferable. Today's political argument involves perennial themes that give it more seriousness than many participants understand. The argument, like Western political philosophy generally, is about the meaning of, and the proper adjustment of the tension between, two important political goals -- freedom and equality.

    Today, conservatives tend to favor freedom, and consequently are inclined to be somewhat sanguine about inequalities of outcomes. Liberals are more concerned with equality, understood, they insist, primarily as equality of opportunity, not of outcome.



    Conservatism embraces President Kennedy's exhortation to ``Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country,'' and adds: You serve your country by embracing a spacious and expanding sphere of life for which your country is not responsible.
    Here is the core of a conservative appeal, without dwelling on ``social issues'' that should be, as much as possible, left to ``moral federalism'' -- debates within the states. Regarding foreign policy, conservatism begins, and very nearly ends, by eschewing abroad the fatal conceit that has been liberalism's undoing domestically -- hubris about controlling what cannot, and should not, be controlled.
    Conservatism is realism, about human nature and government's competence. Is conservatism politically realistic, meaning persuasive? That is the kind of question presidential campaigns answer.

    Phil Waring (Running On Empty) however believes:
    Maybe the best way to crystallize a dichotomy like this is to take each end to its extreme. If what Ware is saying is correct, the liberal ideology taken to extreme would amount to big government to enforce communism, and the conservative ideology taken to extreme would result in very little government at all.

    Interestingly the results would be the same using Will's argument of freedom vs equality.
  2. Mathematician

    Mathematician Reason, and reason again

    Actually I believe if you're trying to find a main difference between liberals and conservatives on which all other decisions derive, it's not a matter of fairness and freedom [after all, the modern conservative movement is hardly free on social matters, and I'd argue the modern liberal movement isn't economically fair], but individual and community.

    Of course grouping people is a lot of times impossible [most Americans are neither conservative nor liberal by their own admittance], but I think generally the difference can be found in pronouns. Conservatives [excluding neo-cons and the Religious Right] are generally libertarian. To them it's about the individual. While liberals are generally socialist or social democrats. To them it's about the community.

    You'll find that everyone is in agreement that anarchy would be ideal if practical.
    !Fluffy! likes this.
  3. !Fluffy!

    !Fluffy! Lacking Common Sense

    that's a thoughtful analysis Gene, thanks. and i'll have to chew on that last one, it is intriguing.
  4. !Fluffy!

    !Fluffy! Lacking Common Sense

    no others with thoughts on this?
  5. Joe_Stocks

    Joe_Stocks Back from the Dead

    Hi Moon Woman,

    I think you hit the nail on the head. I have always thought that a hard-core right winger can stay true to his principles because his principles include limited government and more individual liberty whereas a hard-core left winger has to moderate his actual convictions because most people would abhor the loss of freedom that would come with liberal policies.

    I ask that of my liberal friends, "What is the worst that could happen if crazy right-wingers like myself were in powerful poisitons in our government? Less incompetent goverment, more freedom to pursue your hopes and dreams. You can still be liberals and attempt to build your socialist paradise, just you wouldn't be able to do it by confiscating people's hard earned money."
  6. Wandered Off

    Wandered Off Sporadic Driveby Member Staff Member

    Generally a bad idea
    Joe, you know there can be no socialism without confiscation.

    Nice to see you here, BTW.
    !Fluffy! likes this.
  7. !Fluffy!

    !Fluffy! Lacking Common Sense

    historically this is what happens over and over and over again, yes. but few seem to heed the lessons of history.

    Excellent, and i'm going to keep that for my next conversation with the son in law...:)

    btw you do know you've stumbled into a liberal forum, lol.
Draft saved Draft deleted