Libertarianism and Conservatism vs. Liberalism and Progressivism

[Denny Crane]

Let me start with definitions.

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual Liberty. It's about Freedom, in both the economic and social spheres. As minimal government as possible, and certainly as little intrusion in peoples' affairs. Strict adherence to the Constitution, which was written by Libertarians to form a Libertarian society.

Conservatism is based upon three principles: Libertarianism, anti-Communism, and traditional values.

The words Liberalism and Libertarianism share a common root - Liberty, though the meaning of the word has radically changed over the past two centuries. Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal, and he would have nothing to do with the modern Liberal agenda. A true Liberal is a Libertarian. I wear the Liberal label proudly. In fact...

The modern usage of the term Liberal makes it a synonym for Progressivism. Progressives never met a govt. program they didn't like, nor a tax they didn't like. They see government as the solution to all of society's ills.

Terms often thrown around by left-leaning politicians include "social justice," and "economic justice" - these all are the main planks of the early Progressive movement and remain part of the lexicon today.

Wikipedia's definition of Liberalism:

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation.

By this definition, I consider myself a Liberal.

Conservatives are 1/3 Libertarian - see the definition above. For this reason, people do confuse Libertarians with Conservatives. They share the small government, lower taxes, and rugged individual mentality, but they don't share ideas about the role of government, foreign policy, or the traditional values aspect.

People also confuse Conservatives with Neo-Conservatives. Ronald Reagan was an actual Conservative, but those republicans elected in 1994 that put Reagan on some sort of pedestal had little in common with him when it came to political philosophy. I look at public figures and I simply don't see many actual conservatives anymore, like William F. Buckley or Barry Goldwater or Reagan. All I see are Neocons. Or JFK, who was a rabid anti-communist, a laissez-faire economist, and favored lower taxes.

Neo-Conservatives are faux Conservatives. There is no element of anti-communism to their philosophy - the Berlin Wall fell before it became a widespread movement. There is no particular Libertarian element to their philosophy either - witness things like the Patriot Act, anti-abortion stance, and so on.

Neo-Conservatives take the traditional values aspect of Conservatism to extreme. This is a Christian nation, and in every way they push religion and other stodgy social values on people THROUGH GOVT.

Neo-Conservatives also have little to do with making govt. smaller. Before Obama's massive stimulus bill, the largest spending bill in history was a highway funding bill passed by Republicans during the Bush years, and I'd also point to a 50% growth in govt. from 2001 to 2008, and especially the hugely expensive Medicare prescription drug add-on.

Heck, W's first 100 days were full of legislation like "No Child Left Behind" - education being a rather lefty sort of agenda item, right? His father used his political capital during his first 100 days to pass a civil rights bill (Americans with Disabilities Act) and an environmental bill (Clean Air Act). Not exactly right wing agenda items, right?

If you think government is good, then you're likely a Progressive. If you think government is bad, then you're likely a Libertarian. If you believe in people, you're likely a Libertarian. If you believe everyone is an idiot except for you and needs to be told how to live, you're likely a Progressive.

So when I say Reagan was a Libertarian, it's because he said things like "govt. is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem."

In fact, I'll conclude this post with a quote from his first inaugural address:

From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

We hear much of special interest groups. Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, "We the people," this breed called Americans.

...

It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government.

...

Those who say that we are in a time when there are no heroes just don't know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter—and they are on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They are individuals and families whose taxes support the Government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet but deep. Their values sustain our national life.

And if you don't realize JFK was a Conservative, compare this quote from Reagan's speech with one from JFK's:

Reagan

To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment. We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale.

As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it—now or ever.

JFK

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

...
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Pardon my denseness, but what is the purpose of this thread?

 

[barfo]

The purpose is to try to convince everyone how superior Libertarians are. And how every president from Washington to Reagan was a Libertarian (and yet, strangely, we don't have a libertarian government). And so on.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Pardon my denseness, but what is the purpose of this thread?

It helps to explain how Denny became the Colonel Gaddafi of internet sports forums.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The purpose is to try to convince everyone how superior Libertarians are. And how every president from Washington to Reagan was a Libertarian (and yet, strangely, we don't have a libertarian government). And so on.

barfo

OK, I can live with that.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

PAULTARDS 2008

 

[Entity]

He's declaring that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is not democratic. Also, I think he's implying that no one should listen to political pundits ever, and start thinking for themselves. Plus, he strongly condemns those who try to "read between the lines" to find out "all the evils that the opposition is secretly up to in order to keep us down or enslave us all".

 

[Natebishop3]

The lines between parties are so blurred it's impossible to figure out who stands where.

I will say this, I fail to understand how Dems/Libs or whatever they call themselves these days can call themselves "progressive." I find that term personally offensive. To say they're progressive means that they think anyone who does not subscribe to their beliefs is not forward thinking or wanting progress. It's the kind of high and mighty, holier than thou, smug attitude that makes me dislike the Liberals.

Conservatives/Republicans may be uptight, morally judgmental, crazy christians, but the Dems aren't any better. Everyone needs to get off their high horse and start working together. Stop calling yourselves things like progressive and start trying to work on compromise.

 

[Denny Crane]

The purpose is to try to convince everyone how superior Libertarians are. And how every president from Washington to Reagan was a Libertarian (and yet, strangely, we don't have a libertarian government). And so on.

barfo

Really?

The purpose was to put forth definitions of a few of the more commonly talked about political philosophies on this board.

Judging from the big 3 poll, a lot of people don't get what the terms mean. Judging by how people call themselves libertarian, a lot of people don't get what the terms mean, either.

For example, I don't see how anyone can call themselves a Libertarian and oppose gay marriage.

 

[Nate4Prez]

For example, I don't see how anyone can call themselves a Libertarian and oppose gay marriage.

Tell that to the Tea Party.

 

[rosenthall]

In a nutshell, I think the difference between Libertarians and Conservatives is that Libertarians prefer small government, whereas Conservatives want conservative government.

 

[Minstrel]

The lines between parties are so blurred it's impossible to figure out who stands where.

I will say this, I fail to understand how Dems/Libs or whatever they call themselves these days can call themselves "progressive." I find that term personally offensive. To say they're progressive means that they think anyone who does not subscribe to their beliefs is not forward thinking or wanting progress. It's the kind of high and mighty, holier than thou, smug attitude that makes me dislike the Liberals.

How is it high and mighty? It's in direct opposition to "conservatism," which means valuing tradition over progress (historically, not as the terms are used today). These are largely social designations, not technological. The progressivism movement favoured reform through government while conservatism believed government should keep things as they were, valuing stability over everything else.

It's nothing to do with being high and mighty...it was a belief system that valued something different than conservatism did. Even today, you'll find many, many people who will say that they don't want social "progress" and upheaval...they want things to go back to the "way they used to be." I think you're reading in a platitude that doesn't exist in the term.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Like many ideologies, the relevance of the conservative/liberal designation appears to be fading.

If someone asked me, I would say I am "liberal," because that's what I grew up with. But honestly, I don't know for sure.

 

[maxiep]

I used to be a liberal, then I grew up.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Really?

The purpose was to put forth definitions of a few of the more commonly talked about political philosophies on this board.

Judging from the big 3 poll, a lot of people don't get what the terms mean. Judging by how people call themselves libertarian, a lot of people don't get what the terms mean, either.

For example, I don't see how anyone can call themselves a Libertarian and oppose gay marriage.

OK, I'll bite. First, are you only a libertarian if you are 100% "libertarian"? Can you think gay marriage is great but also think that there are times that our military should step outside of our borders?

Secondly, can you call yourself a Libertarian if you think gay marriage is fine but don't want to give tax breaks based on it?

 

[MrJayremmie]

Problem is Denny, you say you are a libertarian, and while you obviously know your views better than I do, I always see you defend Republicans and oppose Democrats.

For example, the thread in which you kept giving statistics of support for Iraq and all that garbage.

There was no declared war, and it was very interventionist. Because of these two things alone (plus the money spent and lives lost and everything else), shouldn't you always be on the liberal side of this? Yet nearly everything, except gay marriage, you side with Big Government Republicans, which represents nearly every Republican in congress today.

 

[MARIS61]

In fact, I'll conclude this post with a quote from his first inaugural address:

...And if you don't realize JFK was a Conservative, compare this quote from Reagan's speech with one from JFK's:

Reagan


JFK

You do realize those are not actually their words.

They are speeches, written by speechwriters like Ben Stein, under the guidance of the people who put them in power.

That said, I fail to see how either speech demonstrates conservative principles.

Self-preservation is common to all parties.

 

[MARIS61]

I don't agree with your definitions, nor do I believe most leaders and followers of those ideologies would agree with them. We each define ourselves and others from our own viewpoint.

For instance, you say Libertarianism is 1/3 "traditional values". My traditional values are quite different than yours or Shooter's in many ways, while similar in others. In American media jargon they mean racism, homophobia, and christianity. In Alaska they mean subsistence hunting and being left the hell alone. In Idaho and Utah they mean mormon values...

I favor views of different parties on different issues, and abhor the "party" system as a failed shortcut/time-saver to true Democracy.

 

[Denny Crane]

Conservatism is 1/3 traditional values.

I wasn't referring to specific values but more a favoring of the status quo or resistance to change.

I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[MARIS61]

Conservatism is 1/3 traditional values.

I wasn't referring to specific values but more a favoring of the status quo or resistance to change.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Not at all.

Conservatives favor legal abortion and welfare, which are part of the status quo and have been for decades?

 

[MARIS61]

Not being a smartass, but can you explain how "Libertarian society" is not an oxymoron?

Seems like "of the people, by the people, for the people" is contrary to the idea.

 

[Natebishop3]

How is it high and mighty? It's in direct opposition to "conservatism," which means valuing tradition over progress (historically, not as the terms are used today). These are largely social designations, not technological. The progressivism movement favoured reform through government while conservatism believed government should keep things as they were, valuing stability over everything else.

It's nothing to do with being high and mighty...it was a belief system that valued something different than conservatism did. Even today, you'll find many, many people who will say that they don't want social "progress" and upheaval...they want things to go back to the "way they used to be." I think you're reading in a platitude that doesn't exist in the term.

That's not how I view "conservativism" or how I was raised to view it. I was always under the assumption that it meant fiscally conservative. Today it means morally conservative. Just as "liberal" was with money, making it the polar opposite of "conservative". Now liberal means morally liberal... Progressive is the new term. I've never heard conservative meaning valuing tradition. Not in any of my poli sci classes, but who knows....

 

[Minstrel]

That's not how I view "conservativism" or how I was raised to view it. I was always under the assumption that it meant fiscally conservative. Today it means morally conservative. Just as "liberal" was with money, making it the polar opposite of "conservative". Now liberal means morally liberal... Progressive is the new term. I've never heard conservative meaning valuing tradition. Not in any of my poli sci classes, but who knows....

Progressive isn't a new term, that's the thing. People may be using it a lot more these days as some kind of synonym for liberal, but it's not a new term. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were all progressives, and even termed themselves as such. There was a Progressive Party formed in the early 1900s. As for conservative, the term and idea goes back much farther than recent American politics. Similar to Denny, by "tradition" I meant resistant to change and favoring status quo. That's been a major political position for thousands of years, regardless of what it was termed. More recently, in the West, it's called conservatism.

While there is both social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, progressivism was in opposition to social conservatism (as progress versus resistance to change is not as meaningful when it comes to fiscal issues). These days, a lot of people use liberal and progressive interchangeably, but they certainly weren't conceived of as the same thing and the term "progressive" was not created as a self-compliment...it was to illustrate a desire for pushing things forward by upheaval, combating the desire to keep things stable and the same.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not at all.

Conservatives favor legal abortion and welfare, which are part of the status quo and have been for decades?

Some conservatives favor abortion and some don't. Conservatives surely don't favor welfare, at least long term welfare.

I only know of one actual Conservative who came out in favor of abortion - Barry Goldwater.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not being a smartass, but can you explain how "Libertarian society" is not an oxymoron?

Seems like "of the people, by the people, for the people" is contrary to the idea.

Libertarians believe in government, just not a whole lot of it. Look at the constitution as written and you'll see a blueprint for a Libertarian society.

I don't know what is so hard to understand about people being responsible for themselves and entering into voluntary contracts to do most things. The (civil) courts are there to referee when one of those contracts becomes in dispute.

The key points of the constitution are that the central govt. is to be severely limited to only the powers specifically enumerated in the document, and everything else is vested in the states and the people. The people being you and I and everyone else. Very little is enumerated, and on purpose! Read it.

The people who run the government would be ordinary citizens, not career politicians. You'd serve, if elected, then go back to your business or job. That is OF the people, elected means BY the people, and since there'd be no incentive to cut deals with special interests (govt. doesn't have the power to do many favors!) it'd be FOR the people.

Instead, we have govt. by the politicians and lawyers, of the career politicians and lawyers, and for the lobbyists. Are you truly happy with that setup?

 

[Denny Crane]

To back up Minstrel's two posts, I had already posted this in the first post:

The words Liberalism and Libertarianism share a common root - Liberty, though the meaning of the word has radically changed over the past two centuries. Thomas Jefferson was a Liberal, and he would have nothing to do with the modern Liberal agenda. A true Liberal is a Libertarian. I wear the Liberal label proudly. In fact...

The modern usage of the term Liberal makes it a synonym for Progressivism. Progressives never met a govt. program they didn't like, nor a tax they didn't like. They see government as the solution to all of society's ills.

Terms often thrown around by left-leaning politicians include "social justice," and "economic justice" - these all are the main planks of the early Progressive movement and remain part of the lexicon today.

Indeed Teddy R was a Progressive, and there was a Progressive Party around the turn of the century (before and after about 1900).

When I look up the word "Liberal" in my encyclopedia, the article talks about Thomas Jefferson and not about Teddy or La Follette.

 

[Klinky]

One thing to note about Thomas Jefferson is that he loved his slavery. In fact, some of his justification for slavery made him sound as though he was a socialist. The idea being that one should not free their slaves into harms way & instead provide food, shelter & safety for them. Though one wonders if those were his true feelings or just a way of justifying his use of slaves.

I think people need to stop candy coating the "Founding Fathers" as if they were ineffable Gods who only spoke truth. Having flawed dead men "take sides" in modern debate is iffy.

 

[MARIS61]

Some conservatives favor abortion and some don't. Conservatives surely don't favor welfare, at least long term welfare.

I only know of one actual Conservative who came out in favor of abortion - Barry Goldwater.

So they don't favor the status quo, they want to radically change it into what it was in an earlier, less educated time. Ignore science and pretend we don't know we're polluting the Earth. Play dumb and pretend we can afford to fund wars with tax $ for the oil companies and Halliburton to profit from. That sounds more like the conservatives I know. Maybe they should be called Regressives? They never progress and they certainly don't conserve anything.

 

[Natebishop3]

One thing to note about Thomas Jefferson is that he loved his slavery. In fact, some of his justification for slavery made him sound as though he was a socialist. The idea being that one should not free their slaves into harms way & instead provide food, shelter & safety for them. Though one wonders if those were his true feelings or just a way of justifying his use of slaves.

I think people need to stop candy coating the "Founding Fathers" as if they were ineffable Gods who only spoke truth. Having flawed dead men "take sides" in modern debate is iffy.

They were "ineffable Gods" compared to the scum that runs the country today.

 

[MARIS61]

I see little difference.