The political spectrum: Are you a Liberal or Conservative?

[Uncle Chester]

This thread is just to find the the political category of The Cigar Lounge.

Now I realize people cannot be entirely grouped into one section and fit that sections criteria entirely but feel free to explain your views on an economic level and a social level.

So are you a conservative? A moderate? Or a liberal?

 

[SalvIsWin]

I would classify myself as a Liberal politically, although I admit I don't know much about the Liberal vs Conservative viewpoints and ideologies when it comes to economics. It's entirely possible that a conservative viewpoint is generally better and more responsible than a liberal one. If I recall correctly, the stereotype is that conservatives are the financially fiscal ones, whereas liberals are often portrayed as being irresponsible with money, and perhaps even wasting it on extravagent projects. Like I said however, I don't know much about this.

Socially however I have liberal ideologies. Conservatives (for the United States & Canada at least) tend to be religious, and frankly, bigots - two things which I personally don't care for. While I don't personally care about one's religion, I honestly don't understand the logic behind believing in a deity, and I hate the intolerance and inequality that is often spread via religion. Take gay rights for example, the conservative party of Canada, and the Republican party of the United States is against gay marriage, and are often bigots when discussing the LGBT community. I couldn't see myself supporting a position or party that is in favour of these types of actions.

Also, politically, I find that since the conservative agenda is typically to maintain the status quo, and make very small changes gradually, a oft used strategy to garner votes isn't the critique the sometimes grandiose or lofty goals of liberals or independents, but to simply insult, or create fear. This is all in very general terms, as obviously not all conservatives act this way, but I would say that conservatives definitely act this way more often than liberals. Even if economically liberals were on average not as adept as conservatives are when it comes to economics, it's the social issues that are most important to me.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Generally speaking, I'd have to classify myself as a liberal. When I think of a conservative, I tend to think of someone that's for the status quo and a traditional view of things. Some traditions and usual standards are fine things, don't get me wrong on that. But there are too many traditions and standards that I don't agree with and feel that should be done away with.

I have no problem with legalizing gay marriage & adoption on a national basis, I support a woman's right whether or not to give birth, I support stem cell research, I support stricter gun laws & penalties and I believe strongly in the Separation of Church & State. Basically, those are three of the biggest hot buttons in politics and my views simply can't be conservative because mine are on the opposite side of the aisle.

Of course, that doesn't mean that a person can't be liberal on some issues and conservative on others. For instance, I have no problem with responsible & civic minded people owning guns. I would not support any movement to remove the Right to Bear Arms from the Constitution. I do feel, however, that it shouldn't be easier to purchase a weapon designed first and foremost to kill than it is to get a driver's license.

I think a big problem is that there's quickly becoming no such thing as a "middle of the row" way of thinking. Over the last few years especially, you keep seeing more and more people are moving either towards the extremely far left or extremely far right. When you get into those areas, fanatics pop up right and left and there seem to be more and more of them showing up.

 

[Loveless]

Both and neither. I don't believe in rigidly taking one side across as a whole number of issues but conservatives would probably call me a liberal for that very reason. I know that were I in the US, there is no ethical way I could vote Republican because of how ludicruously far right they take issues. Seriously, most people don't seem to realise the similarities between the rhetoric and policy of the far Republican right and the Taliban. They're both extremely conservative and you guys should be thankful to your constitution for protecting you from Conservative extremism.

I fully believe you have to set a balance between government control and personal liberty. You can't just let the people do whatever the hell they want but at the same time, there is a limit to how much governments should interfere with peoples lives.

It's been kind of difficult in the UK recently to find a political identity. The 3 main parties had become so similiar that it was near impossible to tell them apart. That has all changed now because the economy has forced policy sacrifices to be made but still, UK policy really does only come down to "Where do we spend our money?" There are no major social issues like abortion or gun control to be constantly raked over, we live in a moderate country with a zero-tolerance policy on the political extremism that exists in the US. Conservative or Labour government, if someone even made the argument for scrapping the abortion laws they'd be kicked out of the government before they could blink.
I guess by US standards I'm a firm liberal. In this country I'm very much in the middle

 

[Calderownz]

Truthfully, I don't side with either of these pathetic ideologies.

Both sides have things I agree with and things I disagree with.

Republicans are in favor of guns. I applaud that as I feel making guns illegal would only keep guns in the hands of criminals (who, by definition BREAK THE LAW) and out of the hands of law-fearing citizens. Idiot.

They also have less of a tendency to be SO politically correct. I hate PC. With a passion. Both sides generally do it, but Republicans usually are the types to cross those lines. I virtually never agree with what they're saying. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to say such things, however. As long as they accept the ramifications, then they should be able to say what they choose.

I hate that they won't tax the rich. They are the business party, yet claims to represent the common man. Always yelling about supporting the troops, but won't pay a penny more with their taxes if given the choice. Taxes, that would.... SUPPORT THE TROOPS.

They are always usually homophobic, often times insensitive to the situation within inner cities, and too into that Jesus guy for me.

However, like MOST political ideologies, they do have some bright spots.

Democrats, on the other hand, usually give me more that I agree with. However, I can't stand how much of the *****fication of this great nation is due in part to the left. So overtly politically correct. So worried about trying to mend the fences. Never want to offend anyone. Pushed around by the other party. A democrat will get dragged through the mud by an opponent, and the democrats will respond with, "Real mature, guys." It's pathetic.

However, they are also far more open-minded. They are also far more supportive of the troops, regardless of the propaganda the right will feed you.

Still, if anything, I'd assume I'd have to classify myself as a progressive Independent. I don't take sides. It's like McDonalds and Burger King. Never become "loyal" to either brand. See what they have to offer you, then decide. And that's what political parties are. They are brands.

See what they offer. Then make your decision.

 

[DwayneJason]

Apolitical really. The problem with this spectrum is that idealogies can get so convoluted at times it's very hard to place them on a single line.

I'm conservative when it comes to crime, taxes, shit like that and I'm liberal when it comes to operation of gov't and things like that.

So, it really depends on the views both of them hold. Classification in politics is pretty tough.

 

[Davi323]

Preface: I am using the American definitions of the word conservative, not the global version. (I realize that the terms liberal and conservative mean different things, depending on what country you are from)

I am a conservative, with quite a few libertarian leanings. I am NOT a Republican, nor am I a member of the Tea Party. I refuse to box myself in, preferring to remain independent, capable of voting for whoever I want, whenever I want. I do primarily vote for the Republican candidate, as for the most part, their beliefs are much closer to my own. But, I am not willing to become beholden to them in any way.

I believe that Government works best when it is smaller and more efficient, and that the current government of the United States is bloated and wasteful with tax dollars. This is not entirely the fault of the Democrats, Republicans have contributed their fair share to the problem as well.

I believe that the US Government has vastly exceeded its Constitutional authority, and needs to get back on track.

I believe that the best way to revitalize the American economy is for the government to get the fuck out of the way, and let it happen. Business owners know a hell of a lot more about money than any of the dipshits in DC. The only thing they know about money is that they can spend whatever the fuck they want, and when the bill comes, they just charge it to the American taxpayer. That isn't any way to run a country. You cannot treat money like it is an infinitely renewable resource...yet that is exactly what they are doing. The US Government is like a student fresh out of college, who gets their first credit card. They think they can go on a spending spree, and rack up the debt, and fail to realize that eventually the bill will be coming.

I believe that the US Government should have a balanced budget, and would support candidates who would propose adding a Balanced Budget amendment to the US Constitution. I would allow specific exceptions, such as the unknown costs of having to go to war, disaster relief and things like that, but the Government absolutely needs to completely change its spending habits.

I believe that people are responsible for their own actions, I do not blame society. I believe you have to take care of you, not someone else. Nobody forces you to do a damn thing. You make choices. Some are good, some are bad. Take responsibility for all of them.

I believe that parents know how to raise their children better than the government does.

I believe that all men and women ARE created equal, and should be judged entirely on their merits, not be shown preferential treatment because of the color of their skin. That means I believe affirmative action is racist. It is a tool that white liberals use to keep minorities down. They claim it evens the playing field, but all it really does is tell minorities that they can't achieve their dreams without the help of white liberals who supported affirmative action. Affirmative Action tells minorities that they are perpetual victims, who need help. It says you can't get into a good college without help from the white liberal. You can't get a good job without help from the white liberal, you are always stuck under the foot of those evil conservatives, who believe that you should get into college based on your grades, who believe that the most qualified candidate should get the job...those bastards.

I believe that abortion is actually murder, and I can frame the argument without mentioning God or Jesus once. I believe a convincing argument against abortion can be made entirely using nothing but science. I can certainly interject my Christian faith into the argument, but I am fully prepared to leave God completely out of it, so that nobody can claim I need God as a crutch for my belief on the subject.

I believe that the importance of a two parent home is VASTLY understated. Dan Quayle was 100% correct.

I believe Liberals have taken advantage of the poor, and have been misleading them about the conservative agenda. Liberals want to give you the fish, for infinity. Conservatives will give you a fish the first couple of times, but thinks that you should learn how to fish so you can do it on your own, instead of having to be given fish all of the time. There is a difference between temporarily needing help from the government, and living off of the government teat for years because you know its simply easier to fuck the system than find a job.

I believe that marriage is a sacrament, a promise between not only husband and wife, but also includes God. I do not believe in gay marriage, as the Bible considers homosexuality a sin, and would spit in the face of God's will.

I DO believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to enter into civil unions, with FULL legal rights however. My objection to gay marriage is the symbolism of the word marriage, and its religious connotations, not that I believe two dudes should be able to be on each other's health insurance, or be able to adopt children or anything like that. If you want to call it anything other than marriage, but have equal legal protections, I am fine with that. Its really a separation of church and state issue. If the States want to grant full legal protections to gay couples, it is entirely within their rights to do so. The legal protections married couples enjoy is at the convenience of the state, if they want to extend those rights to other situations, that is their prerogative. However, since there are religious connotations with the word marriage, the state should avoid using language that might be construed as showing religious favoritism. Civil Unions, as a term to describe the contractual binding of two people, is entirely secular in nature, devoid of religious meaning, and would be better to describe the situation.

I believe that the decision to help the poor and needy is an individual decision, and should not be dictated by the government. Charity should be volunteer, not mandatory.

I believe that if you are on unemployment for 99 weeks, you aren't really looking for a job anymore, you are just lazy.

I believe that the United Auto Workers are the single biggest reason that American cars lag far behind their Japanese competition. They drove up production costs so much that the American companies simply cannot compete. I live in Michigan. I see the effects of the UAW every day. Unless you live here, you simply cannot understand the union mentality. Unions started out as a good thing, a way to protect the workers from being taken advantage of by management. It stopped being that decades ago, and became about paying its members the most money for doing the least work. You cannot run a business with that mentality.

And HOLY SHIT, that was a lot longer than I originally thought it would be...YIKES!

 

[Dragonslayer]

Some interesting points made here, also some good arguments in favor of conservatism... I'll just quickly add my two cents on some issues:

First off, I guess I'd most definitely call myself a liberal, and although I do not live in the US, I generally agree more with the agendas of the Democrats than those of the Republicans. And there are a few key issues that are the reason for that.

1) Interestingly enough, the point of liberals/Democrats being too "politically correct" and too soft versus their opponents, has been raised. Now I do agree that while the "puss-out" (since that term has been mentioned) way is a lot less flashy and a lot less impressive, I'd take that road over the Republican Over-The-Top-style any day. Why? Simply because this thing that has above been mentioned as "saying out loud what you believe and want" does nothing but build up and strengthen already existing ressentiments, and add fuel to already burning fires. It is, simply said, a most undiplomatic way of doing business. I always like to put it this way: "Those who shout the loudest usually have the least to say." - Because if their ideas were sound, and their arguments reasonable, they would not need to "shout out"; for people would listen to what they have to say anyway - simply because what they have to say makes sense.

Now I do believe that this has something to do with the American mentality in general, as the US tends to see itself always "in the right", no matter what they do, once they've decided on a way to go - and there never occurs to them the chance that in fact, they might have been mistaken. Once a course is set, that has to be followed to the end - and to whatever end, at that. And I just don't think it's smart. It's just stubborn.

I understand that governments oftentimes will have to go through with their set courses in order not to appear spineless, but ultimately, pursuing a course just to finish it at whatever cost, even if halfway through experience begins to show that it's been the wrong way to go to begin with, to me is not a sign of strength and rigidity, but a sign of weakness, in that it shows people's inability to admit to own faults and mistakes, which in my opinion takes a lot more "guts & balls" than to just keep hammering down on an issue until everyone else is silenced by brute force and grind. And I simply get the impression that the liberal/democratic way of handling issues is more akin to the latter, hence my preference for it.

The problem with being too up front and too much "in your face" against others is that, while a nation like the US due to its size and potential power (both financially/economically and military) can often overwhelm a potential adversary or counterpart or at least intimidate them into submission, is that even though a momentary victory might have been achieved, the underlying conflict almost never is resolved. And by being too much of - plainly put - an a**hole about it, it just adds more fuel to the fire. And ultimately, those conflicts will boil up again, and the sh*t will hit the fan even more dramatically and drastically than before.

That's why diplomacy, especially in an international context these days, is more needed than ever. And Republicans/conservatives often lack that diplomacy for me. For after all, one of their main agendas - and of course, a very legitimate one - is that they will always put their own nation's needs first. That of course would appear very patriotic at first glance, and very beneficiary to the people living in that nation. However, it is my belief that in our day and age, the times of nationalism are (or at least should be) over. I think that the entire world these days is confronted with pressing issues that affect every nation and every person, and not just the citizens of one particular nation anymore. And I belief that the entire world will need to find a way to act together and to cooperate on some of these issues in order to steer the course into a safe future. That sounds very utopic, of course, but that's just how I see it.

But of course that idea is often corrupted by problematic decisions and attitudes of nations' leaders, and to me, conservatism/nationalism lies at the heart of this. For when everyone is always only focused on their own well-being instead of looking at the "bigger picture", someone (usually that party who has more strength/power) will come out on top, while the other (the "underdog") will have to submit to the stronger one's will, and again just fueling the initial conflict. And you can see that problem in countries all over the world. Take for example the still communist countries of China and especially North Korea, that are literally trying to completely seclude themselves from the rest of the world (which is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion, as they are, as a matter of fact, also part of this world, and no indoctrination of the people in any beliefs whatsoever by their governments and leaders will ever change that simple reality); and there are still governments where religion/spirituality plays a way too important role, and which are thusly restricted in their options of acting in a holistic way; but there are also western governments, mostly those led by conservatives, who simply focus too much on their own agendas - always in the mindset that they only want to do what is best for their people, which is patriotic of course - without ever looking left or right, and without ever trying to look past what's right in front of them. And of course that seems like a safe way to maintain the status quo (also a point that has been raised), since the status quo is something that is known and something that we can deal with; any major change always comes with a risk of failure, and people are naturally scared to take those risks (also quite understandable) - but I simply believe that in this day and age, a maintance of the status quo is no longer an option, and changes to socities, both within the microcosms of societies within singular nations as well as the global society as a whole, have to be targeted and have to be achieved in the next decades in order to preserve the world we live in for future generations, and to avoid another great (possibly nuclear) war that would in any case threaten the existence of mankind as a whole.

And to achieve that end, both the acceptance and readiness for change, people of all nations, all beliefs, all creeds and all color need to be brought closer together and taught to understand that ultimately, we're all sitting in the same boat - and in the long run, it just won't matter whether your house stands in Washington D.C., in London, in Nairobi, in Tokyo or in Beijing; whatever happens in this world meanwhile affects us all; even regional wars and conflicts affect worldwide economy, and the bigger the conflict gets, the more nations and people will be pulled into the maelstrom, one way or another. And we should do any and all things possible to prevent the rise of more conflicts, and the aggravation of already existing ones. But in my mind, that can never be achieved by brute force, but only by reason. Only if people are educated to understand this situation, and only if they thus become ready to pull on the same string, progress can be made. And that is why I think a diplomatic approach is needed; for a greater basic consensus to work off on is needed. And a consensus simply cannot be forced, by nature.

Hence my affinity to the "liberal/democratic" way of doing things.

2) God. My dear, what an issue. It should be over and done with for a hundred years, but STILL people keep bringing God/religion into the equation. And to me, as an agnostic (not an atheist!), it is just beyond ridiculous. Grown men and women, who are trying to discuss important decisions that affect the very way a large society will develop, suddenly and completely inexplicably oftentimes fall back on a purely transcendental, purely hypothetical, purely imaginative "entity" as an argument for or against certain processes, acts and facts that exist in real life.

I simply will never understand how on Earth people think it could in any way whatsoever be reasonable to justify ANY decisions whatsoever by bringing in the argument of "God wills it!" - For there simply is no proof, no evidence that this "God" even exists, much less so any proof or evidence that we, as this God's alleged minor underlings, even have any clue of knowning that the true "will" of this entity really is; to claim such I think is just a complete paradoxon of the entire concept.

Now as Davi323 pointed out: If you have scientific and reasonable arguments for something, by all means, be my guest. If you are against abortion, and you explain to me exactly why and how an organism that consists only of a handful cells already is to be regarded as a human being, and if that argument is sound and reasonable, then I will listen to you. But if you tell me that abortion is wrong because "God says so", then I will gladly call BS on that!

Same thing for gay marriage/homosexuality in general. Now apparently, homosexuality is a sin, right? Because people can't reproduce in gay relationships, right? And because the bible says so, right? But then, tell me - if that "God" is so omniscient, and so omnipotent, and created everything and everyone around us insignificant human beings according to his own will... then why has no one ever mentioned the idea that homosexuality could possibly be a part of that plan?! I mean, it's not like there are only 10 gay people worldwide; I think there's quite a couple more. And if there are that many, the conclusion lies close at hand that God made them so - and suddenly, those who are most zealously defending their "God's" will, in the same breath and instant proclaim a flaw in "His" design?! What kind of logic is that?! And who are we - especially those of us, who so blindly and faithfully trust in "God", or rather, the teachings of that God's church - to claim to know better than that divine entity itself?! Oh of course, it's in the bible... but then again, the bible was written - guess what - by PEOPLE. And can't people make mistakes? Couldn't it be that someone maybe just deliberately put that in there, because they didn't like homosexuals for some reason?

I am sorry, but that entire discussion, to make an entity, that only "maybe/maybe not" exists the entire basis of ANY argument for anything in the existing world, to me is just beyond ridiculous.

If you have faith in God, if you are follower of a religion - by all means, please do so. Please go to church every Sunday, please pray for the safety of your friends and family each night before going to bed, please read the Bible, the Q'ran, the Tora; whatever suits you - but please, please, PLEASE keep ANY ideas you get from those teachings, any ideas you get because of your relationship to that entity you worship as a "God", OUT of politics, OUT of law, lawmaking and the entire apparatus of justice, OUT of any form or fashion in which YOUR beliefs could be employed to suppress the lives of others, or where others are forced by governments and laws to live the way you choose fit for yourself, even if they do not. Because that has NOTHING to do with "being good" or "doing good"; that is simply cruel, inhumane and fascist.

I guess that's my take on Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

And really ask yourself, whenever you form or voice your opinion on a subject, especially if you think that your own personal religious motivation might have played a role in forming that opinion: "Do I really believe that this/my opinion should be made a law; a law that is binding to everyone, even if they do not share my belief/faith? Or - could it be enough if I just for myself follow that belief (i.e. never carry out an abortion, never marry a person of the same gender etc.), and let others do what is right according to what they believe?"

It is a matter of freedom; something that I think especially in America is and has always been a great word and important principle. And especially for those who claim themselves "patriots", who claim themselves those that work in the spirit and for the good of their nation - is there still freedom if I force my will/my faith onto so many other people, even if that faith is not theirs?

In closing, I will just quickly reiterate: Keep religion out of politics. Please.

And yeah, I guess I'm a liberal. ^^

 

[The Doctor]

I'm a radical.

The political spectrum goes, from left-to-right:

Radical - Liberal - Moderate - Conservative - Reactionary

Radicals are the left-wingers who don't think the current system is working and believe that a whole new system and a revolution would be best in order to sort everything out. This differs from Reactionaries, who, while similar to Radicals, want to go back to an old system.

I know Radical has come to mean something bad in the popular lexicon, but it's pretty accurate. I really think the system needs a major overhaul. Nothing ever gets accomplished.

 

[Kenny Powers]

There are lots of issues in America that people can be liberal or conservative about. I would probably classify myself as liberal, but I wouldn't put myself in an extremist category. I don't believe that politicians should pander only to their extreme right or left wing political base, but for the common good of the American people. Sometimes that happens, but sometimes its politics as usual.

I believe the whole health care repeal debate is just an act for the GOP to appeal to its hardcore base, even though they know its not the best interest for the country. Its a double edged sword to be liberal or conservative because if you are liberal you are considered a tree hugging pansy and if you are conservative you are considered an ignorant racist super religious gun nut.

I'm for proper health care for all Americans and fair rights for women, minorities, and homosexuals alike. I'm not against war or guns, but I am against invading any country for no valid reason and easy access to guns and ammo. I also can't believe people can actually carry guns legally in bars and churches in Arizona.

I'm basically for more help for poor working people and less help for corporations and the richest people in America. If that is liberal than so be it.