Conservative or Liberal literally........

[rturner76]

Conservative:
averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

Liberal:
willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

In all honesty, these are the littoral definitions of "conservative" and "Liberal," according to Oxford.

What philosophy can you in good conscience get behind?

Based on the definition of these concepts alone, I must say that the party that respects people's opinions even when they are different from our own and is open to new ideas, is the party of liberty (freedom).
The party that does not value innovation nor are they open to new ideas sounds like oppression to me.

Do you want to work for oppression or freedom?

What are the benefits of not changing with changing times, and what are the benefits of changing as society changes?
What are the pitfalls of changing with changing times or making no changes or innovations?

 

[HTacianas]

Conservative:
averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

Liberal:
willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

In all honesty, these are the littoral definitions of "conservative" and "Liberal," according to Oxford.

What philosophy can you in good conscience get behind?

Based on the definition of these concepts alone, I must say that the party that respects people's opinions even when they are different from our own and is open to new ideas, is the party of liberty (freedom).
The party that does not value innovation nor are they open to new ideas sounds like oppression to me.

Do you want to work for oppression or freedom?

What are the benefits of not changing with changing times, and what are the benefits of changing as society changes?
What are the pitfalls of changing with changing times or making no changes or innovations?

Someone gave an analogy once to describe conservative and liberal mindsets. Seems a conservative will never approach the edge of a cliff for fear of falling over while a liberal will run headlong over the edge without looking. I am somewhere in the middle. I prefer to approach the edge, look over, and then make a decision.

But as to Oxford's definition of liberal meaning "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own". You have got to be kidding me.

 

[iluvatar5150]

In all honesty, these are the littoral definitions of "conservative" and "Liberal," according to Oxford.

Literal.

“Littoral” means at sea but near a shoreline.

 

[AlexB23]

Someone gave an analogy once to describe conservative and liberal mindsets. Seems a conservative will never approach the edge of a cliff for fear of falling over while a liberal will run headlong over the edge without looking. I am somewhere in the middle. I prefer to approach the edge, look over, and then make a decision.

But as to Oxford's definition of liberal meaning "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own". You have got to be kidding me.

Yeah, Oxford has gone woke. I am somewhat in the middle also, but used to be more left leaning, until recently.

 

[Yttrium]

Based on the definition of these concepts alone, I must say that the party that respects people's opinions even when they are different from our own and is open to new ideas, is the party of liberty (freedom).
The party that does not value innovation nor are they open to new ideas sounds like oppression to me.

Do you want to work for oppression or freedom?

I'm not buying that. Quick counter-example: the rise of the Soviet Union. Change with the times and conform to the communist state. Submit to oppression.

You're looking at being liberal in an idealistic way. It has its ups and downs, just like being conservative. I like a balance of the two. Change is inevitable, but approach it carefully and responsibly. Make sure you know what you're getting into.

 

[rturner76]

But as to Oxford's definition of liberal meaning "willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own". You have got to be kidding me.

Perhaps in reference to not accepting others' points of view are the extremist and activist, however, IMO your average Liberal is more willing to seek compromise than a conservative.

Someone gave an analogy once to describe conservative and liberal mindsets. Seems a conservative will never approach the edge of a cliff for fear of falling over while a liberal will run headlong over the edge without looking. I am somewhere in the middle. I prefer to approach the edge, look over, and then make a decision.

I agree somewhat in that liberals are more willing to jump off the cliff but in a practical sense, most would like to evaluate what the outcome may be first whereas conservatives according to this way of thinking wouldn't even want to talk about it but just stay safe with what they already know and not take on board any new information that might make it possible to jump off a cliff. Like new technologies that may allow paragliding, parachuting, or even bungee jumping. IMO the conservative way of thinking is more like we have never done it, it's not possible to do and no, I don't need to look at any new information to know this.

 

[rturner76]

You're looking at being liberal in an idealistic way. It has its ups and downs, just like being conservative. I like a balance of the two. Change is inevitable, but approach it carefully and responsibly. Make sure you know what you're getting into.

I totally agree. Common sense is usually sensible. One sort of miscommunication that happens is that Liberalism gets mistaken for Communism. Liberal, indicates that freedom is chief among liberal ideals. While progressive liberal activists are influenced by the writings of Karl Marx, Communism is not the same as liberalism. Communists want the government to control the market so that capitalism is not allowed to reign and take away living wages and safety conditions for the common worker. A liberal by definition can be either right or left-wing politically as long as the government supports individual freedom. It seems to me that the right is willing to give up some freedoms in order to ensure the safety of the citizens. That is actually more of a Communist look as it has been practices in large countries so for.

 

[rturner76]

Literal.

“Littoral” means at sea but near a shoreline.

Sorry for the typo but I'm pretty sure you know in what way I was applying the term. I admit that over the years, I have become more and more dependent on spell check and it passed that. I wasn't aware of the other meaning with a slightly different speling.

 

[rturner76]

I see that so far the votes are all for "some mix of the two." I think that is the healthiest approach. Use what you like and chuck the rest.

 

[Yttrium]

While progressive liberal activists are influenced by the writings of Karl Marx, Communism is not the same as liberalism.

Yes. In fact, Chinese communism these days has become a conservative stand. The conservatives in China resist reforms, while the liberals try to push the government to more capitalism and civil rights. The forms of government can be liberal when they're introduced, and conservative long after they've been established. My point was that giving up freedoms can be a liberal form of change. Encouraging freedom can be a conservative standard in a society that has valued freedom for a long time.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I embrace some form of reactionary traditionalism, or what might simply be called common sense in a more reasonable age. Which rejects modern Conservatism and Left 'Liberalism' which are both outgrowths out of Liberalism proper. I reject the notion of Liberalism and it's core doctrine of liberty and equality as an impossibility and a contradiction. As a Christian especially I hold this viewpoint because if I were to embrace the political formula of the OP I would cease to be a Christian because the particularity of Christianity and everything it has stood for historically is in opposition to his preferred state of the world.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Sorry for the typo but I'm pretty sure you know in what way I was applying the term. I admit that over the years, I have become more and more dependent on spell check and it passed that. I wasn't aware of the other meaning with a slightly different speling.

I just like the word "littoral."

 

[rturner76]

My point was that giving up freedoms can be a liberal form of change. Encouraging freedom can be a conservative standard in a society that has valued freedom for a long time.

I think that the liberals are more concerned with individual freedom while conservative seems to lean less toward individual freedom and more toward business freedom (but it is possible that I am thinking of the progressive view and the capitalist view which advocates more for business freedom).

 

[Zaha Torte]

Conservative:
averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

Liberal:
willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

In all honesty, these are the littoral definitions of "conservative" and "Liberal," according to Oxford.

What philosophy can you in good conscience get behind?

Based on the definition of these concepts alone, I must say that the party that respects people's opinions even when they are different from our own and is open to new ideas, is the party of liberty (freedom).
The party that does not value innovation nor are they open to new ideas sounds like oppression to me.

Do you want to work for oppression or freedom?

What are the benefits of not changing with changing times, and what are the benefits of changing as society changes?
What are the pitfalls of changing with changing times or making no changes or innovations?

I don't see these definitions reflecting how we use these terms in politics today.

 

[driewerf]

I totally agree. Common sense is usually sensible. One sort of miscommunication that happens is that Liberalism gets mistaken for Communism. Liberal, indicates that freedom is chief among liberal ideals. While progressive liberal activists are influenced by the writings of Karl Marx, Communism is not the same as liberalism. Communists want the government to control the market so that capitalism is not allowed to reign and take away living wages and safety conditions for the common worker. A liberal by definition can be either right or left-wing politically as long as the government supports individual freedom. It seems to me that the right is willing to give up some freedoms in order to ensure the safety of the citizens. That is actually more of a Communist look as it has been practices in large countries so for.

Communism is totally the opposition of liberalism.
Liberalism is the embrace of laissez-faire capitalism with no or as little as possible state intervention. But also with as little as possible (best, none at all) regulation of working conditions.
Communism means that all means of production are in hands of the state or the community with no or as little as possible private companies.

 

[Pommer]

Conservative:
averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.

Liberal:
willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

In all honesty, these are the littoral definitions of "conservative" and "Liberal," according to Oxford.

What philosophy can you in good conscience get behind?

Based on the definition of these concepts alone, I must say that the party that respects people's opinions even when they are different from our own and is open to new ideas, is the party of liberty (freedom).
The party that does not value innovation nor are they open to new ideas sounds like oppression to me.

Do you want to work for oppression or freedom?

What are the benefits of not changing with changing times, and what are the benefits of changing as society changes?
What are the pitfalls of changing with changing times or making no changes or innovations?

Conservative: “The systems we all live under (as bad as they can be sometimes)) are mostly functioning well, and anyone who complains are just malcontents who are certainly free to ‘petition the government for the redress of grievances’.”

MAGA: “We want it like it USED TO BE!”

Liberal: “Let’s make it better for more people even if that impinges on overall ‘freedom’ a tiny-bit!”

 

[rturner76]

I don't see these definitions reflecting how we use these terms in politics today.

Excellent observation. That is the main reason that I posted it the way I did. With total flip-flops by both major parties, how can we be certain what is a conservative or liberal position? Do we go by the definition of the words (label)? If not, with all of this criss-crossing of values, how are people to know what agenda they are voting for? Since it can't be deciphered by definition, is it the latest news report, the latest poll, what out neighbor, family, or friends say or what?

My solution to this (maybe not a solution but it may be helpful, I certainly don't have all the answers). We should vote on an issue-by-issue basis. Regardless of party, what individual supports the things that are most important to me? It also indicates that we must look at each individual who is running instead of just picking a party. I mean, I was raised Minnesota DFL across the board but I wish I could remember the name of a man who was pretty in step with the principles that are most important to me but he was a southern Republican. I wouldn't have been in a position to vote for him but if I was, I would regardless of party.

 

[rturner76]

Communism is totally the opposition of liberalism.
Liberalism is the embrace of laissez-faire capitalism with no or as little as possible state intervention. But also with as little as possible (best, none at all) regulation of working conditions.
Communism means that all means of production are in hands of the state or the community with no or as little as possible private companies.

That is another reason that I brought up this topic. The meaning of the terms we use to describe the general tenets of a political platform are completely distorted from the true meaning of the applicable term.

For example, people on both sides of the aisle would say that liberals want more government programs for food, employment, welfare, and subsidized housing but a better term than Liberal would be progressive. Progressiveism is much more hands-on in their approach to the Federal government.

On the other side Conservatism nowadays has a more dictionary definition Liberal approach. Less taxes, make it easy for businesses to make money, free markets, etc but when their liberalism fails is in the idea of "personal freedom." They seek to punish people for crimes without a victim or legislation against sin when nobody agrees on what is sinful behavior. That is where Conservative IS being applied appropriately. The mainstream Conservatives seem to actually be more liberal.

It makes it hard to put a person of one party or another into a category. So I am suggesting that people look at the individual running and what they say they believe in specifically and people may vote for a different party than they were always loyal to.

That would be a revolution in itself. Voting for an individual rather than just checking the box of the party you have aways supported as the rule.

 

[rturner76]

Conservative: “The systems we all live under (as bad as they can be sometimes)) are mostly functioning well, and anyone who complains are just malcontents who are certainly free to ‘petition the government for the redress of grievances’.”

MAGA: “We want it like it USED TO BE!”

Liberal: “Let’s make it better for more people even if that impinges on overall ‘freedom’ a tiny-bit!”

Pretty accurate. That is why I think we need more descriptors than right wing-left wing. All kinds of things get distorted and the meanings of words change depending on who is in charge or who is reporting the story or taking the poll etc.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Excellent observation. That is the main reason that I posted it the way I did. With total flip-flops by both major parties, how can we be certain what is a conservative or liberal position? Do we go by the definition of the words (label)? If not, with all of this criss-crossing of values, how are people to know what agenda they are voting for? Since it can't be deciphered by definition, is it the latest news report, the latest poll, what out neighbor, family, or friends say or what?

My solution to this (maybe not a solution but it may be helpful, I certainly don't have all the answers). We should vote on an issue-by-issue basis. Regardless of party, what individual supports the things that are most important to me? It also indicates that we must look at each individual who is running instead of just picking a party. I mean, I was raised Minnesota DFL across the board but I wish I could remember the name of a man who was pretty in step with the principles that are most important to me but he was a southern Republican. I wouldn't have been in a position to vote for him but if I was, I would regardless of party.

That is the best way to look at it - but it would require people to be informed - and they don't like doing that.

It's easier to just check the box with the letter of the party you support.