What Are Conservative/Liberal Values/Principles/Ethics?

I know the textbook definition but that doesn't really matter when you are dealing with different people and different beliefs.

So, can any conservatives or liberals define the core beliefs of a conservative or liberal as they see them. If you have an idea on both of them, you can state that also.

 

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

 

I was a libertarian when young, and am still libertarian socially but relatively liberal fiscally. More confident on social issues than economic issues.

Liberals generally believe people are good, but become victims of circumstances and sometimes need help and this should take priority. Diversity is good, and society is overall getting better as traditional values decline. It's a sort of maternalistic mentality.

Conservatives generally believe certain people are bad, and liberals encourage them to be parasitic. Good people are productive and don't need help from the government. Society is declining because we are getting away from traditional moral values. It's basically a paternalistic mentality.

 

well in my experience... anytime I challenge a self-identifying democrat, everything I say is republican garbage... sadly I'm not trying to be a sarcastic jerk right now either... I've never seen such a broad brush painted as to what a republican is... I've voted for both sides, so I get it, I'll get the business from both sides... but even when I agree with them on a problem, when I offer any alternative solution, I'm a horrible evil rich white male republican... despite the fact I just agreed with them...

so I think it has less to do with what a republican identifies as, it has more to do with the negative stereotypes a democrat can place on them...

now sure I could flip this around and say republicans do this to democrats, but I really see it more of a banner democrat label to demonize the other side... of my friends they are split pretty fair on each side... I stand alone in the middle unfortunately... and I often see more harsh cruel words coming from democrats when describing republicans, than I see from republicans describing democrats... they have negative words, but far far less quantity and mean spirit...

so maybe thats the difference? either way, the internet has amplified the hate to dangerous levels where now nobody wants to compromise or find solutions where we all can reach solutions we find acceptable, its now my way or the highway, get out of the middle and jump on board one of the trains...

 

see right now thats the problem, everything you just said... you said one side is positive and good, the other is negative and bad...

republicans believe the vast majority of people are good and wonderful people willing to give you the shirt off their back if you need the help... they understand bad things happen to good people, there isn't a senator or governor of any state on ANY side who would say otherwise...

both sides do exactly what you claim conservatives do... both sides do exactly what you claim liberals do... they may approach the issues different, and think their solution is the better approach, but the basis for their goals are almost identical when like me, you drill down into individuals on each side and strip away the political, stereotypical, hype each side lobs a volley of fire over the castle walls at each other...

both represent poor people, both represent rich people... both represent black people, both represent white people... both represent straight people, both represent gay people... both represent men, both represent women... both... both...

[video=youtube;rAdC2K8-E4U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAdC2K8-E4U[/video]

P.S. I love trebuchets...

 

I'm speaking in generalities of course, the party as a whole and not unique individuals within it. Maternalistic isn't necessarily better than paternalistic, but given the conservative approach to things like welfare, I would say cynicism towards people who don't take care of themselves is there. And traditional values. Some people consider that a good thing. It's true I don't, but that's pretty central to social conservatism. It's true republicans are more cheerleaders about Americans in general, but do they look down on certain segments of society? Yes, I think they do in general. Not racism per se, but often classicism. It's only negative if you don't believe in those conservative values.

 

That's an interesting take on it. It didn't occur to me that liberalism is somewhat effeminate in that it emphasizes nuturing and the establishment of social activity and connections, the reduction of force and enmity, and things like that.

I guess, by contrast, conservatives would be more masculine- emphasizing authority, individual achievement, competition, and tends not to shy from force or be overly concerned with the effects of it's using force.

I wonder if the left-right political mindset could be characterized as a masculine-feminine mindset?

 

We often see ourselves as the reasonable moderate, and everyone else as sort of definitive in their general opinion. It's a fault of perception. The general antagonism of either side against the other is pretty thick. You will have some ideas people will consider overblown, weird, or flat out wrong. If you bring this up in a political context, they will fault your political inclination. If you don't, they will fault your personality.

However, what does being a republican/conservative mean to you? The core things that you do not waver on?

 

You've got to be kidding?

Do you even read this forum?

 

yeah I do... and I still think its a fair statement... lol...

 

I don't think this is true. Holistically, the two have certain characteristics that are generally consistent. Republican's do not represent the poor, though every once in a while a word or two might be spoken of them. There are different kinds of Republican. Republican's admire structure while not exactly inviting rule from above. Democrats admire social liberation under an ideally benevolent overseer. Republican's believe that people should fare for themselves and Democrats generally do not trust people to be kind to one another without positive, overarching reinforcement of some type. This is one that I've noticed, but there are others...

Do you have an idea of the core principles of your political party? Or if you are something different, what are the ideals you more consistently find yourself endorsing?

 

what does it mean to "represent the poor"... to give handouts, or to provide opportunity, or to allow a path for self-efficiency... we could add a thousand more descriptors... but when you say represent the poor, how can you make such a bold statement to say they don't... deporting illegals would IMMENSELY help the poor, and their wages would increase as a result of supply and demand... stopping regulations that could increase energy costs and as a result hurt the poor the most who can least afford those increases to be passed along to them... there are MANY instances where republicans attempt to help the poor, but they are stereotyped as helping big business profit more...

its all a matter of perspective isn't it... just because one side gets labeled a certain way by their "enemy", does not mean the label is true...

P.S. you keep asking about the core principles of my political party... I don't belong to either, which allows me the freedom to be hyper-critical of statements made by both, and about both... so one second I am "attacking" republicans and people call me a democrat, the next second I am "attacking" democrats and people call me a republican... so one thing I can say for certain, neither side likes being challenged, thats a fact... lol

 

If I had to give my best opinion on it, it seems that conservatives generally tend to see nothing wrong with the structure, but criticize the people. Liberals criticize the structure while endorsing the people.

I think there is an inherent problem in each. Conservatives love discipline and structure, but do not like submitting themselves to or being interfered with by an external authority. However, there can be no discipline and structure in large societies without a central authority or general overseer. They like personal freedom, and the instabilities and inequities that result from this are just a part of life people have to learn to deal with on their own.

Liberals wish to advance a commune. It is not about how each individual fares in life, but progressing as a communal entity free from subversive discriminations, prejudices, and inequities. In short, they seek a Camelot- a moral dictatorship or nation administrated by a benevolent authority. However, equality is not the natural state of man and to create equality, one must empower a central force to be the overseer. Liberals are happy to trade individual freedom for social stability.

 

a little followup to your "republicans do not represent the poor"...

lets say democrats pass a $15 minimum wage, is that representing the poor?

what happens when MILLIONS of retired people come out of retirement for those high wages, taking jobs from the unemployed, I mean how do you compete against someone with 40 years of work experience when you might only have 4 months or 4 years? how is that helping the poor?

what happens when millions do lose jobs since not all employers can afford it, thats okay because millions of others benefited? so we justify it?

what happens when we legalize 30 million illegals, who will now compete for those $15 an hour jobs... how do we justify that helping poor americans?

what happens when the tens of millions of unemployed black citizens, still can't get a $15 an hour job because an illegal was given work papers to take it? and a senior citizen came out of retirement to get extra income since they can't afford to live on social security either? is that helping the poor?

perspective... is that still helping the poor?

so because republicans fight against the higher minimum wage, and fight to deport illegals, thats harming the poor? instead I see that as HELPING the poor... helping to create demand for employment, helping to put pressure on wages, helping AMERICANS who these politicians are responsible for... while I see democrats as HURTING the poor, by allowing illegals to come take their jobs legally, by creating more unemployed young people... by not fixing social security and generations in the future may never be able to stop working, thats hurting the poor...

so I just showed dramatic examples of how republicans are helping the poor, but they get labeled as supporting big business and big interest... and I just showed dramatic examples of how democrats hurt the poor but are labeled as saviors for the poor...

perspective...

P.S. when we legalize 30 million people, and have $15 minimum wage... how on earth would we NOT expect more illegals to come, because employers would LOVE to hire illegals now and pay them $10 instead of the $15 a legal employee would cost... how is that helping the poor or the recently allowed illegals??? how is any of that helping the poor by democrats?

perspective...

 

Representing the poor means representing the poor in all facets, which the Republican's do not seem to do very often.

Republican's do not provide avenues for success or opportunity to the poor. In general, Republican's do not support job creation (one of the opportunities), they support business, industry, and finance. It is an important distinction because the welfare and needs of business, industry, and finance may be harmful or counterproductive to that of the workers. Job creation is incidental, not the priority. In a contest between these two groups, people who align themselves to the Republican angle generally tend to believe it is the worker who must conform to the needs of the B, I, and F's.

Immigration, from a Republican standpoint, is not about helping the poor. Immigrants are the poor. Nominally, they claim to want to stem immigration to protect American character and or sovereignity. Immigration is also seen more as an assualt on the Middle Class rather than the poor, which Republicans generally do not invoke in their debates.

However, the immediate correlation between poor people and handouts is a typical Republican concept. When the poor are mentioned, they are usually addressed in terms of social spunges whose existence is a burden on people and not so much a problem of the people. This is definitely true to some extent, but the broad and unwavering characterization of the poor in this way, I feel, is not an accurate representation of the poor and does not reflec concern or a wish to help poor people rather than general scorn and a dismissive sink-or-swim attitude.

Sorry to be long-winded, but both parties practice poltical triage. They can't patronize everyone, so they chose a bracket for for their base. Republican's generally go with the upper middle class and higher and their quirk is the military. Democrats with the rest, and their quirk is the arts. Nominally. In truth, both support the higher class and neither cares for the poor. The support of the higher classes is necessary and the support of the middle class is ideal. Both parties will be forced to make concessions to these two groups throughout their poltical careers, but all they will need the lower class for, potentially, is their numerical advantage in things like votes...or war fodder, etc.

 

Wage increases have been happening since the beginning of civilization, lol. The problem of paying yesterdays workers their due tomorrow has always been one of socieites major problems. In the past, they were generally ignored. The government would default on these dues (like the soldiers they would hire and promise to pay after the campaign). I suppose, today, they wish to keep the costs down so they attempt to legitimize freezing the rise of wages with the standard of living. In effect, labor becomes cheaper and cheaper and reduces. Basically, the argument here is that the rising cost of labor inconveniences business owners and so the laborer must sacrifice their share for the benefit of their employers.

It's all in how you angle the story, I suppose.

Legalizing 30 million illegals will create a massive labor base. The competition will skyrocket, the labor supply will be through the roof, and the price of labor will reflect third world nations. At such a point, I imagine business and industry will no longer need to ship their products so far to find the cheapest price. However, when immigrants are not allowed, jobs are expatriated to foreign workshops. The emphasis is not on jobs here and I fear the call for immigration restriction is just political blanks. No one really plans to follow through with it, but like state independence, it's a convenient political magnet for votes. Both parties actively support and are endorsed by major industries and companies that rely on this type of set-up. And Black labor has always been sought for it's low costs- which they ideally seek to keep low.

The issue of immigration is not about helping poor people or somehow protecting American jobs...in my opinion. Americans or their jobs are not the central issue here.

It's all in how you frame the argument, I suppose. Is climate change really about saving the planet or growing an already multi-billion dollar industry. Remember the O-zone layer crisis we were facing a about a decade or two ago? What happened? Nothing. Holes in the O-Zone are stupid nonesense drummed up to support one agenda or the other. Climate change is the same way. And anti-immigration is framed to be morally authentic, but both the Republican and the Democrats are working on the TPP and modified versions of NAFTA which will make this present immigration problem a proverbial mole-hill. They have you looking at throwing back illegals when they are actually trying to make a singular international economic zone out of the whole continent which will make every worker on the continent a legal citizen and further erode the labor protections we have in this country,, not to mention the bill of rights and the various other local laws that will become effectively, voided- and that's just the start.

 

this is very interesting what you said...

and then what you did was attack republicans using stereotypes and didn't mention a single thing democrats do...

so which is it... all of them do it... or only republicans...

what avenues that democrats have provided, have resulted in solving poverty in america... because last I checked, the poverty rate in america is almost IDENTICAL to the poverty rate we have today... so are you saying, things would be worse off today? or that democrats have not provided ACTUAL avenues to escape poverty, and are merely a dog and pony show to appear to be doing something?

I know fun question hey... how can you prove they worked when we have the same results, so all we can assume is things would be worse, but then how can we explain the enormous gains of wealth in america... so have democrat policies kept the poor down, or lifted the rich up... if we acknowledge democrat policies lifted the rich up then we have to acknowledge they kept the poor down... ooo what a tangled web we weave...

 

way to not answer the question... how are democrats helping AMERICANS who are poor with immigration and a $15 minimum wage pushing millions more out of the work force... I know I know you're going to think you answered it... you didn't... you just spun and performed the best magic trick ever...

because the only answer was, the democrats are not helping the american poor...

I brought extremely relevant and predictable events that will occur and put millions more, on top of the millions today, out of work... causing more poor to suffer... while they tout it as a victory for helping the poor... how do you take a victory lap when you just added millions to the unemployment line and will suffer...

 

What I find interesting was that the original question was to describe Liberal or Conservative values, principles ethics, equating that with Republicans and Democrats is a major misunderstanding of the ideologies. I will add that there are Very few people that are actually a full-fledged Liberal or Conservative so painting people using broad brushes is another error.

 

I have voted both ways and Indy also.
However, I see R's use harsh rhetoric. Libturds, liberalism is a mental disease, etc. Certainly both sides fringes can throw out demonizing words.

 

paint by numbers... I'm just following the numbers, not my fault the painting is ugly... HEYYOOOOO thats my zinger for the night...

as someone who gets blamed for being both a democrat and a republican... I wish there were more truly independent candidates in america... because like you are suggesting, I think the vast minority of people are either political party, but each political party has done an EXCEPTIONAL job dividing us to pick a side, especially with the dramatic increase of politics online... the internet has fed the beast...

10% of people are hard left... 10% of people are hard right... 80% in the middle are screwed... HEYYOOOO second zinger for the night...

 

Deporting illegals is political fodder for sheep. It won't be taken seriously because corporations want that cheap and even under the table labor. And they donate large amounts of money to the politicians campaign.
If we want to shut down illegal immigration, punish the companies that hire them. But that won't happen and so all the rhetoric from the right is just that, fooling the sheep.

Stopping regulation on energy could lead us back to Lake Eire burning.

R's don't seem to have any interest to helping the poor, except to take away safety nets, yes some get abused, and helping poor get educated. So I don't see how you can make the claim they want to help the poor.

 

correct, I did not state republicans don't use harsh words... I said that I see democrats using it far more severely and regularly than republicans... when I see a republican rant like a nut, they say a few words then spend the rest of the time picking apart the idea with their logic and facts... when I see a democrat rant like a nut, they say a few words then spend the rest of the time saying a few more, and a few more, and a few more, and a few more to the point they switch topics entirely and forgot what on earth they were supposed to be talking about... now could be because they are in a furious rage, or because they don't have any defense, I don't know... its just a trend I spot... republicans rant, then dive into information... democrats rant, and rant, and rant, and then switch topics...

 

I don't see it. I see many R's who never provide nothing of value. Very few from either side seem to provide unbiased facts.

 

Long-winded statements are unnecessary here, the definitions are simple and themselves define the values:

Conservative:

Preference for the status quo of society, for being comfortable with established ways and methods and norms and resisting efforts to change them.

This implies sharing the principles and values of the society you grew up in and that exist as you live now, rather than having ones that differ and thus driving you to try to change society. May be because of sincerely holding said principles, or simply because what exists is a comfortable known with risks that are known and can be mitigated. Thus resists change as change disrupts the current social order, increases risk, causes discomfort, worry, and conflict. Prefers things to stay static and peaceful.

Liberal:

Valuing freedom of action and thought.

Implies support for allowing people to be free to do most things as they please - speak as they please, act as the please, think what they please, go where they please, etc. As such, directly conflicts with and is distrustful of authority which restricts freedom. Implies they must on some level be comfortable with different people having different ways of doing things and different ways of thinking, which they will exercise if made free, thus implying more open mindedness.