Why I am a conservative (Part Two of Two)

[August1991]

It is obvious that co-operation achieves much more than competition. So, for example, I am sympathetic to social insurance schemes arguing that "We're all in this together." But such schemes too often become someone else telling me what to do.

Simply said, I fear allowing a few people to "control" the choices of many other people.

I am a conservative because I believe that the world is largely a better place if its several billion people are "free to choose".

====

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited October 12, 2013 by August1991

[dre]

It is obvious that co-operation achieves much more than competition. So, for example, I am sympathetic to social insurance schemes arguing that "We're all in this together." But such schemes too often become someone else telling me what to do.

Simply said, I fear allowing a few people to "control" the choices of many other people.

I am a conservative because I believe that the world is largely a better place if its several billion people are "free to choose".

====

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong in that both conservatism and liberalism have libertarian and authoritarian elements. Neither of them can claim overall to be more about "free choice" than the other. Both of them have traditionally pushed to have their own morality in a way that has seeked to reduce personal liberty.

If "free choice" is a panacea for you then you should be a social and economic libertarian, and that group sweeps across the traditional political spectrum, and pulls in a lot of liberal and conservative elements.

[Bonam]

If "free choice" is a panacea for you then you should be a social and economic libertarian

However there are no mainstream movements/parties/organizations in most any Western country that represent that point of view, hence one generally has to choose which of the terrible available options provides more free choice. Of course, neither one stands for much.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Bonam

[dre]

However there are no mainstream movements/parties/organizations in most any Western country that represent that point of view, hence one generally has to choose which of the terrible available options provides more free choice. Of course, neither one stands for much.

Yup pretty much. Although I admit I might be bias but to me convervatism represents a larger infringement on my freedom of choice than liberalism. Liberals want to take a bunch of my money and spend it on welfare, social programs, etc. That is certainly an afront to my freedom of choice because I might not WANT to spend my money on those things. Conservative on the other hand have traditionally wanted to throw me in prison if I snort a line of coke, or smoke a joint, or *&^% my girlfriend in the ass. Conservatives have also fought against almost every cause that would increase the ammount of personal rights people enjoy.... like womans sufferage, interacial marriage, or homosexual rights.

So i guess if I had to choose I would take contempary liberalism. Because at least all those guys do is take some of your money.

But in any case it all ammounts to the same thing. At the authoritarian end of the spectrum both conversatives and liberals seek to have their own moral judgements codified in law. At the libertarian end both groups explound personal freedom.

Edited October 12, 2013 by dre

[eyeball]

Simply said, I fear allowing a few people to "control" the choices of many other people.

I am a conservative because I believe that the world is largely a better place if its several billion people are "free to choose".

====

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Nothing wrong with that.

I'm a lefty for the very same reason.

[Moonlight Graham]

I think political ideologies are more complex than what August is claiming. I think I agree with dre (except his use of the term "liberalism" might be used inaccurately) that "You are wrong in that both conservatism and liberalism have libertarian and authoritarian elements. Neither of them can claim overall to be more about "free choice" than the other."

In modern terms, liberals and conservatives tend to be libertarian or authoritarian in different ways. On the one hand, conservatives tend to value more of a free-market economy with fewer regulations. On the other hand, conservatives can be more authoritarian in terms of security and domestic & international surveillance (ie: PATRIOT Act) , or certain social policies (ie: no gays should be allowed to marry).

I also agree with Bonam that the choices for Libertarian political representatives are weak, moreso in Canada it seems.

I agree with August from his other thread that obviously policy should be carefully thought out, with meticulous analysis of cost/benefits. It's a very serious thing to have the state to use its monopoly power of coercion to force people to do or not do something.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[BC_chick]

If you really respected freedom to choose you wouldn't be in line with movement which has aligned itself with dogma and religion. Conservatives think black or white. Those who see grey are less likely to want to make choices for everyone else.

PS what's up with volume one and two? You couldn't present two points in one thread?

[TimG]

If you really respected freedom to choose you wouldn't be in line with movement which has aligned itself with dogma and religion. Conservatives think black or white.

Black and white thinking and dogma is not an attribute of conservatives but common among people with a wide range of beliefs. Black and white thinking on the left is painfully evident when people utter the words denier or racist to denigrate POVs that they don't like. People with an understanding of nuance would not resort to such labeling.

As for religion: you will find more at a green or NDP party convention than a conservative convention in Canada (largely because I consider extreme environmentalism to be the religion of the left).

Edited October 12, 2013 by TimG

[dre]

(largely because I consider extreme environmentalism to be the religion of the left).

Oh boy... here we go

[jacee]

I have been to meetings of members of all 3 major parties. The 'followers' of the Liberal and Conservative parties all looked like glassy-eyed Stepford children, swaying and waving their foamies

"OOoo ... isn't he/she WONderful!"

I found it eerie, and quite disturbing.

Ndp'rs looked and acted like normal people, with hearts and minds.

[Guest American Woman]

Simply said, I fear allowing a few people to "control" the choices of many other people.

I am a conservative because I believe that the world is largely a better place if its several billion people are "free to choose".

I vote Democrat for that very reason.

[Bitsy]

I vote Democrat for that very reason.

Thee and me.

[scribblet]

If you really respected freedom to choose you wouldn't be in line with movement which has aligned itself with dogma and religion. Conservatives think black or white. Those who see grey are less likely to want to make choices for everyone else.

PS what's up with volume one and two? You couldn't present two points in one thread?

Not all conservatives by any means line themselves with dogma and religion, there are social conservatives just as the NDP has a radical socialist wing. The Liberals have their share of religious people and have voted against abortion for instance, and even brought forward bills. It's just too stereotypical to paint all conservatives as being religious dogmatics.

Many writers and posters have tried to paint Stephen Harper as some raving fundamentalist evangelical, but he never talks about his religion and sure doesn't wear it on his sleeve like Stockwell Day did.

I agree about the 'free to choose', it's the liberals who tried to shut down free speech and didn't want the Sun news channel.

Just my two cents worth..

[Guest American Woman]

I think it's interesting because both liberals and conservatives sometimes vote the way they do for the same reasons - and both have a point as both try to make choices for everyone else in some area. The areas just differ.

[waldo]

I agree about the 'free to choose', it's the liberals who tried to shut down free speech and didn't want the Sun news channel.

Just my two cents worth..

your 2¢ worthy... isn't!

[eyeball]

Thee and me.

I don't think who or what I've voted for has ever mattered very much. I'm more interested in where and when I vote which is no where near often or locally enough. Political parties might as well be on the other side of the moon they are so far removed from what matters most where I live. That's why I hardly ever bother voting for anything going on outside my region.

Contemporary left and right political parties may occupy opposing points on the horizontal political axis but on the vertical axis where the government and governed are located the politicians and parties are all in deep agreement about who should be perched at the top. They also seem to be in deep agreement about the need to keep a lot of distance between the top and the bottom of that utterly black and white line.

Edited October 12, 2013 by eyeball

[Bitsy]

I have never missed a federal or state vote, and few municipal votes in my 70 plus years. My votes rarely make a difference in my solidly red state but I place high value on a right that once was denied so many US citizens, I will never not exercise that right for which so many fought.

I was a Republican for many years but found myself jilted by a party that I thought valued individual freedoms in all areas of life, whose social conscious was abandoned, whose vision of equality was replaced by corporate greed, whose denial of science and distrust of academia is dumbing down each new generation. These are but of a few reasons why I now vote almost a straight Democratic ticket; if I ever see a Republican who resembles the party, I left, I might give him a chance but it is doubtful what one man can change the course of today’s Republican Party who has many members who believe that President Obama is a Muslim

[Moonlight Graham]

your 2¢ worthy... isn't!

What's that supposed to mean?

[kimmy]

I used to think I was conservative. But the stuff that apparently makes you a "real conservative" nowadays doesn't make sense to me at all.

The self-styled "real conservatives" seem to embrace most or all of these beliefs:

-giving the banks and the extremely wealthy whatever they want in the hope that their prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of us

-the necessity of compromising freedoms in the name of "security"

-religious mores should be the basis of social policies

-acceptance of the police turning into a paramilitary force

And I can't stomach any of them.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

I used to think I was conservative. But the stuff that apparently makes you a "real conservative" nowadays doesn't make sense to me at all.

The self-styled "real conservatives" seem to embrace most or all of these beliefs:

-giving the banks and the extremely wealthy whatever they want in the hope that their prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of us

-the necessity of compromising freedoms in the name of "security"

-religious mores should be the basis of social policies

-acceptance of the police turning into a paramilitary force

And I can't stomach any of them.

So what about the stereotypes of liberals? Can you stomach them?

[kimmy]

Not really, but I have never really thought of myself as a "liberal" in the way it is currently used either.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Not really, but I have never really thought of myself as a "liberal" in the way it is currently used either.

Currently used by whom?

I would say that most people who describe themselves as conservative or liberal don't think the stereotypes apply to them - and most likely they don't.

[scribblet]

I used to think I was conservative. But the stuff that apparently makes you a "real conservative" nowadays doesn't make sense to me at all.

The self-styled "real conservatives" seem to embrace most or all of these beliefs:

-giving the banks and the extremely wealthy whatever they want in the hope that their prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of us

-the necessity of compromising freedoms in the name of "security"

-religious mores should be the basis of social policies

-acceptance of the police turning into a paramilitary force

And I can't stomach any of them.

Just more stereotypes really.

[scribblet]

Currently used by whom?

I would say that most people who describe themselves as conservative or liberal don't think the stereotypes apply to them - and most likely they don't.

I think you are right. I'd say that they don't necessarily subscribe to any or all of that. I'm sure if they thought all of that applied they would have to rethink their position. I think they could accept the necessity of compromising freedoms in the name of "security. Our freedom of speech is allready compromised. I don't think any conservative is accepting of turning the police into a paramilitary force...

There may be a small faction, the radical social conservatives who believe religious mores should be the basis of social policies, but not many.

[Argus]

INdp'rs looked and acted like normal people, with hearts and minds.

Yes, they're quite happy in a crowd of like-minded people. Once they're out amongst the rest of us the first thing on their agendas is always how to put in place laws and rules to control what we think, do, say, watch, read or hear. The left hates and is fearful of any opinion which does not agree with it.