Liberals are generally "idealists," while conservatives are generally "pragmatists."

[Novgrod]

IMHO Hobbes isn't much of a conservative, or at least how I would define conservativism.

IMHO again, it's more or less futile to bring modern political labels back on philosophers/political thinkers. Locke was liberal in a sense because he wanted broader acceptance of various people, but he, a whig, was arguing against Filmer, a Tory. Whigs wanted more power in parliament and no divine representative status for the king. Tories wanted the opposite, and neither had any ideas that could really be called liberal.

That said, I think it's an excellent question, and as for its answer, I'll cheap out and say that either party could hold idealists or realists, but that probably there are more realist conservatives. Then again, many libertarians are die-hard crazy idealists and i'm a realist libertarian

Post script: a government can't be socialist unless it's created by a proletarian revolution.

 

[gopunk]

<< pragmatists are MODERATES. They are concerned with the END than with the MEANS. I.E. John McCain. He sees a problem with the way our political campaigns are being finance. Being pragmatic, he went to whoever supported his bill. A conservative, as defined as a contrast to liberals, will not do that. >>



yes, wholeheartedly agree. conservatives and liberals can suck my moderate... uh... yea

but yea, moderates rule! you can see this by some of the definitions given here... they're clearly biased to make the other side look completely irrational. moderates recognize strengths and weaknesses on both sides and take the best of each side.

 

[JellyBaby]

Liberals are people who'll eagerly spend $100 of your money for $10 worth of goods/services if it makes their friends happy. Conservatives try to take that $10 and invest it to get $100. There are exceptions but this stereotype fits more often than not.

 

[Zebo]

<< I would have said the exact opposite. >>

 

[Nefrodite]

actually conservatives oversimplify all situations into black and white. liberals tend to notice the grey areas. of course this means the conservatives only notice the ultra liberals and ignore the rest and stereotype the label for simplicity

 

[kamiam]

<< It seems a good idea is a good idea, no matter what it's source. How I feel or think about a particular issue depends on that issue and not a party line. For example I voted for Bush. Now I will say that I am glad I did in the light of recent history, but I do have some problems with policies. Just the name Patriot Act gets me going, because by the title, you support it (patriot) or do not (Commie, traitor, etc) AND I DO have some problems with it. Not entirely though, but in part. LIke wise I despised Clinton for a number of reasons, yet I am not out for blood, and have to give the devil his due when appropriate. >>

in general, I agree with this statement, however when giving "The Devil" his due, I consider Clinton just a puppet on a string, therefore I give him nothing. and just to throw a monkey wrench into this,since I consider myself neither, how would "Lbertarian" fit into the mix??? I despise both parties for the level of corruptness inherent in both, and truely consider myself Libertarian...

<< anyone ever see the footage of him jumping out of the skyhawk hit by the zuni rocket that started the fire aboard the uss forrestal during the vietnam war? >>

yes, it was required of anyone who became a crewmember of the aircraft carrier I was stationed on during my tour of duty edit; btw it wasn't a "zuni" rocket...I may be wrong but I believe it was a sparrow edit: your right it was a zuni rocket

 

[gopunk]

<< actually conservatives oversimplify all situations into black and white. liberals tend to notice the grey areas. of course this means the conservatives only notice the ultra liberals and ignore the rest and stereotype the label for simplicity >>



i would say that your definition of conservatives applies, in general, to both conservatives and liberals. your definition of "liberal" is more or less a moderate.



liberals fight for rights when it is convenient, and fight for laws against what they don't like.
conservatives fight for rights when it is convenient, and fight for laws against what they don't like.

 

[308nato]

Liberals wring their hands whilst conservatives tend to just wash theirs.

 

[Nefrodite]

i would say that your definition of conservatives applies, in general, to both conservatives and liberals. your definition of "liberal" is more or less a moderate.



liberals fight for rights when it is convenient, and fight for laws against what they don't like.
conservatives fight for rights when it is convenient, and fight for laws against what they don't like.

true, i'm more moderate then anything else. i lean more liberal because of religious freak conservatives who see it as their duty to impose their morals on everyone through law and spread the bounds of religion. a bit like islamic mulahs now that i think about it any tactic is justified for righteous people like these.

 

[gopunk]

true, i'm more moderate then anything else. i lean more liberal because of religious freak conservatives who see it as their duty to impose their morals on everyone through law and spread the bounds of religion. a bit like islamic mulahs now that i think about it any tactic is justified for righteous people like these.

aye, i know what you mean... i would too, but i get pushed back to the middle because liberals always protest stuff. i don't like protests because they back up traffic

of course, there are extremists on both sides... i firmly believe they have psychological issues that makes them the way they are.

 

[Mani]

<< Liberals are people who'll eagerly spend $100 of your money for $10 worth of goods/services if it makes their friends happy. Conservatives try to take that $10 and invest it to get $100. There are exceptions but this stereotype fits more often than not. >>



Then I guess following your generalizations, conservatives then spend that $100 from investment on their corporate fatcat buddy of choice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

<true, i'm more moderate then anything else. i lean more liberal because of religious freak conservatives who see it as their duty to impose their morals on everyone through law and spread the bounds of religion. a bit like islamic mulahs now that i think about it any tactic is justified for righteous people like these. >



Psst- There is a Chinese Communist Revolution under your bed (aka Monty Python)

 

[StageLeft]

Well liberals are idealists but sometimes idealism is silly because nothing can ever be ideal. On the other hand conservatives sometimes embrace that notion such that they stop at least trying. So both suck!

 

[sandorski]

They are both idealists. Neither is pramatic. Pragmatists borrow ideas from Liberals or Conservatives as need dictates.

In the US situation, Democrats are more likely to be Liberal and Republicans more likely to be Conservative, but neither is Liberal or Conservative by default. Those who stray from the norm are the Pragmatists.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

<< They are both idealists. Neither is pramatic. Pragmatists borrow ideas from Liberals or Conservatives as need dictates. In the US situation, Democrats are more likely to be Liberal and Republicans more likely to be Conservative, but neither is Liberal or Conservative by default. Those who stray from the norm are the Pragmatists. >>




Best definition of a Pragmatist (politically speaking)

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Then I guess following your generalizations, conservatives then spend that $100 from investment on their corporate fatcat buddy of choice. >>

Yes, all conservatives are on someone's payroll. You can't trust any of them.

 

[Red Dawn]

<< Yes, all conservatives are on someone's payroll. You can't trust any of them. >>

Wrong, that's just Republican Politicians..just like the Democrat Brethren.

 

[mss242]

<< Liberals are people who'll eagerly spend $100 of your money for $10 worth of goods/services if it makes their friends happy. Conservatives try to take that $10 and invest it to get $100. There are exceptions but this stereotype fits more often than not. >>



Conservatives and liberals spend equally, just on different things. For all the money that liberals want to put into schools, medicare, welfare, etc., conservatives want to spend on defense, crime prevention, family values programs, etc. Both of these expenditures are investments, and they give returns in different ways.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I am amazed that people still clutch to this idea (God knows he is widely characterized this way by the media, who adore him, so I am not picking on you for calling him this). Other than campaign finance reform he is staunchly conservative on nearly every major issue, and has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate.

In the South, Bush pretty much called McCain a liberal in conservative clothing. It was a lie but typical politicians rarely yield to truth.

For all the money that liberals want to put into schools, medicare, welfare, etc., conservatives want to spend on defense, crime prevention, family values programs, etc. Both of these expenditures are investments, and they give returns in different ways.

Liberals want money for defense, conservatives want more money than whatever liberals request. Liberals believe in crime prevention by improving schools, after-school programs, job training, and reducing poverty while conservatives believe crime prevention comes from longer sentences, more prisons, and expanded powers for law enforcement. Liberals believe in family values programs that accept any definition of family while conservatives believe in a PARTICULAR meaning to family values and definition of family.

Conservatives want money for schools with greater local control of curriculum/expenditures, teaching to standards, school choice, and vouchers for everyone that chooses not to use public ed. Liberals want more money to balance the disparities between districts (most school funding is local), improve the standard of teaching, integration (by coercion if necessary), and no vouchers. Conservatives want money for Medicare but would prefer a market-based solution for providing healthcare to the elderly and poor (Medicaid). Conservatives want more money for welfare as long it goes to business interests b/c they believe our nation's strength lies in the capital class. Liberals want more money for welfare b/c they believe the government should support a basic level of existence (food, shelter, healthcare, education) regardless of a person's ability to provide it for themselves.

A write-in voter for McCain . . .

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Both of these expenditures are investments, and they give returns in different ways. >>

Perhaps but the liberal mentality is very free with the nation's money. They don't seem to care when programs the institute fail and need to be canned. If votes are gained, it's well worth it to them.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

<< Both of these expenditures are investments, and they give returns in different ways. >>

Perhaps but the liberal mentality is very free with the nation's money. They don't seem to care when programs the institute fail and need to be canned. If votes are gained, it's well worth it to them.

Hello?

Imported steel tariffs . . . National Missile Defense . . . War on drugs


Republican Congress good for America my arse
What explains this spending binge? Largely the "inability or unwillingness of Republicans to eliminate virtually any government program," Moore and Slivinski say. "Many of the more than 200 programs that the Republicans pledged to eliminate in 1995 in their 'Contract with America' fiscal blueprint now have fatter budgets than they had before the changing of the guard."

 

[JellyBaby]

BaliBabyDoc, that one issue is my biggest gripe with the R party. They've utterly failed in their bid to cut pork, reduce spending and bring government under tight fiscal control.

I should add, though, that much of the reason for this is their evil counterpart, the D party. The Ds whine, cry and use scare tactics whenever cutting comes up for a vote.

 

[HiveMaster]

BabyDoc:
First, they will attack your sources.
Then they will attack you personally.
When you fight back, they will complain to the moderators.
You will eventually get banned.

If you think it is worth it, continue the fight...but realize that the moderators here are all conservative, thin-skinned, and have NO sense of humor. Attacking them with facts does not work. I have seen enough people banned here to know that you face an impossible task.

Just my two cents.