lexy*
07-18-2002, 01:38 AM
Greetings. I am not a hard core political activist, but I still follow major issues and try to make myself an educated voter, and of course, I do have opinions on current political issues.
I was wondering how you all feel about the labels "conservative" and "liberal." Do you consider yourself conservative or liberal or neither and why? What do these words mean to you? Before, I express my opinion, I would first like to define conservative and liberal as seen in my dictionary.
Conservatism: disposition to have things continue as they are; opposition to change;political philosphy based on tradition and supporting existing political, social, and economic institutions, opposing change except when absolutely necesary and favoring gradual rather than radical, sudden breaks from traditional practices.
Liberal (the definition of "liberalism didn't apply well): characterized by opinions favoring progress and reform; free from prejudice, broadminded, tolerant
Now that I have stated the denotation of these words, I want to express my opinion of these labels. Simply stated, these labels, particularly their connotation, irritate me to no end. I think that these labels are outdated and no longer remain true to their objective defintion and I think that their connotation is far from reality.
According to John Locke (an eighteenth century philosopher, I think--I haven't read his works since I was a sophomore in HS), the labels of liberal and conservative are relative. Whatever is the dominant view is considered "conservative" and whatever is the minority view is considered "liberal." Therefore, specific views and opinions are not regulated to either category indefinately, because as society evolves, these views may switch categories. For example, legalization of marijuana should be considered a liberal view because a) Marijuana is currently illegal in the US and b) the majority of people oppse legalization of marijuana. However, if marijuana were to be legalize and most people were to support this change, then the legalization of marijuana would be considered a "conservative" view under Locke's definition. because it would simply be supporting the status quo.
The most important point to discern from Locke is that views/opinions are not inherently liberal or conservative. It all depends upon the prevailing views of society.
In light of Locke's theory, I detest the definitions and connotations of liberal and conservative. If society were to label me, I would probably be thrown in with the conservative group, though I don't seem myself as supporting the status quo, and I don't think that conservatives necesarily support the status quo. Many conservative view support social change and improvement. Granted many of the view harken back to "traditional" value, such as hard work, justice, honnor, and family values, but some conservative values and goals differ drastically from the status quo.
At the same time, many liberal views represent the majority's views, so these supposed liberal views should be considered "conservative" in that they are supporting the status quo. For example, if a "liberal" president is elected by a landslide, then in a way, this president should really be considered conservative, because he/she represents the predominant views of the country.
Finally, it pisses me off to no end that liberal has aquired the connotation of open minded, tolerant and progressive while conservative has aquired the connotation of close minded, backwards, and close minded. In my opinion, liberal does not equal open minded. I know plently of close minded self-proclaimed liberals just as I know several close minded conservatives. For example, during the presidential election, I had some Pro Bush and Anti Gore signs on my door (they were very factual and objective) and time and time and time and time and time again, my self proclaimed liberal dormmates would tear down my signs and write some type of racial slur on my white board--"white ass tonky" was a favorite. On these signs, I wrote "freedom of free speech" all over them in hopes of reminding these people that by tearing my signs down, they were promoting a mild form of censorship, which is clearly not a liberal. These people considered themselves liberal yet they engaged in activities that would be considered conservative by most liberals (censorship). In any even, how could these people possible be considered liberal (remember, liberal supposedly denotes tolerance and progressiveness) if they were infringing upon my freedom of speech?
I do not believe that liberal is bad or conservative is good or vice versa. My point is that these labels are pointless and mispresent reality.
I will give one more example. The flat tax is considered a conservative idea, though really it should be considered liberal because it promotes social change and deviates from the social norm.
I cannot express enough how strongly I dislike these labels. I strongly promote social change and reform, yet I would be considered a conservative on many issues, even though I so not support the status quo. Therefore, these labels are BS and serve only for politcal reasons and they have lost their original meaning.
I hope that at least one person kind of sort of understood my arguement. Most people don't, in part because their views of liberal and conservative are so strongly ingrained and in part, because I am probably not expressing myself well. Any way, any thoughts?
Alexis
I was wondering how you all feel about the labels "conservative" and "liberal." Do you consider yourself conservative or liberal or neither and why? What do these words mean to you? Before, I express my opinion, I would first like to define conservative and liberal as seen in my dictionary.
Conservatism: disposition to have things continue as they are; opposition to change;political philosphy based on tradition and supporting existing political, social, and economic institutions, opposing change except when absolutely necesary and favoring gradual rather than radical, sudden breaks from traditional practices.
Liberal (the definition of "liberalism didn't apply well): characterized by opinions favoring progress and reform; free from prejudice, broadminded, tolerant
Now that I have stated the denotation of these words, I want to express my opinion of these labels. Simply stated, these labels, particularly their connotation, irritate me to no end. I think that these labels are outdated and no longer remain true to their objective defintion and I think that their connotation is far from reality.
According to John Locke (an eighteenth century philosopher, I think--I haven't read his works since I was a sophomore in HS), the labels of liberal and conservative are relative. Whatever is the dominant view is considered "conservative" and whatever is the minority view is considered "liberal." Therefore, specific views and opinions are not regulated to either category indefinately, because as society evolves, these views may switch categories. For example, legalization of marijuana should be considered a liberal view because a) Marijuana is currently illegal in the US and b) the majority of people oppse legalization of marijuana. However, if marijuana were to be legalize and most people were to support this change, then the legalization of marijuana would be considered a "conservative" view under Locke's definition. because it would simply be supporting the status quo.
The most important point to discern from Locke is that views/opinions are not inherently liberal or conservative. It all depends upon the prevailing views of society.
In light of Locke's theory, I detest the definitions and connotations of liberal and conservative. If society were to label me, I would probably be thrown in with the conservative group, though I don't seem myself as supporting the status quo, and I don't think that conservatives necesarily support the status quo. Many conservative view support social change and improvement. Granted many of the view harken back to "traditional" value, such as hard work, justice, honnor, and family values, but some conservative values and goals differ drastically from the status quo.
At the same time, many liberal views represent the majority's views, so these supposed liberal views should be considered "conservative" in that they are supporting the status quo. For example, if a "liberal" president is elected by a landslide, then in a way, this president should really be considered conservative, because he/she represents the predominant views of the country.
Finally, it pisses me off to no end that liberal has aquired the connotation of open minded, tolerant and progressive while conservative has aquired the connotation of close minded, backwards, and close minded. In my opinion, liberal does not equal open minded. I know plently of close minded self-proclaimed liberals just as I know several close minded conservatives. For example, during the presidential election, I had some Pro Bush and Anti Gore signs on my door (they were very factual and objective) and time and time and time and time and time again, my self proclaimed liberal dormmates would tear down my signs and write some type of racial slur on my white board--"white ass tonky" was a favorite. On these signs, I wrote "freedom of free speech" all over them in hopes of reminding these people that by tearing my signs down, they were promoting a mild form of censorship, which is clearly not a liberal. These people considered themselves liberal yet they engaged in activities that would be considered conservative by most liberals (censorship). In any even, how could these people possible be considered liberal (remember, liberal supposedly denotes tolerance and progressiveness) if they were infringing upon my freedom of speech?
I do not believe that liberal is bad or conservative is good or vice versa. My point is that these labels are pointless and mispresent reality.
I will give one more example. The flat tax is considered a conservative idea, though really it should be considered liberal because it promotes social change and deviates from the social norm.
I cannot express enough how strongly I dislike these labels. I strongly promote social change and reform, yet I would be considered a conservative on many issues, even though I so not support the status quo. Therefore, these labels are BS and serve only for politcal reasons and they have lost their original meaning.
I hope that at least one person kind of sort of understood my arguement. Most people don't, in part because their views of liberal and conservative are so strongly ingrained and in part, because I am probably not expressing myself well. Any way, any thoughts?
Alexis