[helene_t]

It annoys me that "conservatives" (w/e that means) in the US persist in claiming that they are the ones who are pro personal freedom.

Someone who is pro freedom in all respects is a libertarian: for the individual's right to have abortion, marry someone of the same sex, own firearms, export weapons to Iran and North Korea, burn the flag, pollute the environment, spend 100% of their own income (i.e. not having to pay taxes), use cocaine, settle in their country of choice etc.

Now try to plot the two major US parties on the over-all authoritarianism-scale. They will probably turn out quite similar although of course it depends on how you weigh the different items.

In most European countries it might be fair to say that those who call themselves "liberal" are more pro freedom than "conservatives" and "socialists", although there could be exceptions such as some "liberals" being tough in immigration, as compared to socialists.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2010-November-06, 11:51, said:

How about: We need to get guys like this permanently off the street, and we need to improve the situation for many young people, partly for their own sake, partly to reduce (elimination being an idealistic dream) the number of youth who make violence their choice. Partly this requires making it very clear what is acceptable and what is not, partly it involves providing realistic options.

The above is roughly my view. Am I a liberal or a conservative?

As I said earlier Ken, liberal has been misused in America. Being a liberal does not mean allowing murderers to go unpunished. On the other hand for individuals who can be brought back into society this is typically a part of liberal ideals. For example, a teenager from a broken home starts to take drugs socially and then moves onto harder drugs and becomes addicted. To fund this addiction they shoplift from their local supermarket. The pure liberal view is to cure the underlying cause (drug addiction and psychological issues) so as to rehabilitate the offender rather than to lock them in prison and teach them to become a better criminal.

There is a great deal of evidence that prisons primarily hold the "mad, the sad and the bad". That is those that are locked away usually either have serious psychological issues, drug problems, or are simply criminals. It is far more effective to treat the cause for the first 2 of these groups but of course you have to do so responsibly and not put people at risk. But this message is simply too complicated to get across to voters. As soon as a politician talks about rehabilitation the opposition will portray them as "soft on crime". It is all part of the game but unfortunately does not always lend itself to good policy-making. We should probably be locking up more of 'the bad' and fewer of 'the mad' or 'the sad'. In this opinion I am certainly a liberal.

As for you, well most parties want to get violent offenders off the streets and to improve the situation for young people. That is not really party political. The method can be somewhat politicised. In general, teaching is more closely allied to conservatism while giving options is more allied to liberalism. But the situation does not fall cleanly into either of these labels. I would not call you either merely from your stated views in this post.

[kenberg]

Being not classified as either liberal or conservative suits me fine. In general I have an aversion to putting people, especially myself, into labeled boxes.

Perhaps more than anything, I am a frequent skeptic. My professional life was as a math prof. It's impossible to count the number of times I have seen schemes for improving the mathematical skills of students. One of the more bizarre involved plans to restructure calculus. Now calculus could use some restructuring, mostly because of archaic content, but of course pedagogy is what everyone likes to discuss. We invited people of various persuasions and one guy came to tell us that at his campus, thanks to his innovations, the freshmen were now solving non-linear partial differential equations. Uh huh. Thanks for your thoughts buddy, your check will be in the mail. The guy I liked best explained some of the things they had done on his campus and commented that it he thought there was some good that came from it but students still screwed up basic calculations more often than he would like. I trust people like that.

Back to the election. I originally thought I would vote for McCain, based primarily on his experience and, I thought, independence of conservative ideology. Over the course of the campaign I came to believe that he wanted too much to be president and understood even less than I do about the economy. I never much liked Obama's speeches, I did not care for the way too cute bit about Iraq being a war of choice and Afghanistan being a war of necessity, but on the whole I trust Democrats ahead of Republicans to make the best decisions. So I decided to go with Obama. This was before the choice of veep, else that would surely have done it. My biggest criticism of Obama, alas somewhat predictable, involves the war. Not that he is the first president to sound like an idiot/charlatan in discussing military decisions. I was of draft age when Lyndon Johnson ran for President on a promise of not sending American boys to do the job Asian boys should do. I could say that this made me the cynic I am today, but actually I think it is hard-wired.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2010-November-07, 07:55, said:

Perhaps more than anything, I am a frequent skeptic. My professional life was as a math prof. It's impossible to count the number of times I have seen schemes for improving the mathematical skills of students.

This brought me a smile. When I was young and working in corporate America, every year or two a new scheme -- with its own set of buzzwords -- was instituted to boost productivity and morale. Each such scheme required time for training meetings and so on. None addressed the real problems.

I actually voted for McCain in the primary. That was no longer a possibility by election day.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2010-November-06, 08:00, said:

But why wouldn't you then classify those who wish to "return to what they perceive as a system closer to that envisioned by the founders would be" as liberals? Aren't they the ones "desiring change?"

i called them "post-revolution conservatives" for a reason...

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-06, 11:21, said:

I find it quite interesting and a very Americanised viewpoint that conservatives would be thought to reflect traditional values. Many things that these groups often stand for - removal of abortion choice, illegality of homosexuality, aggressive persual of foreign policy, etc - tend to go against this theory.

that's true of what passes for conservatives today, but my view is that the central gov't should stay out of issues such as those as long as it can - they should be handled by the states, at a more local level

Quote

I think this is in part how many Americans seem to perceive government though - small government means telling people what to do less and therefore more personal rights. For the most part this is actually not what most conservatives want - they want less regulation in some areas (business, medicare) but more regulation in others ('violations against God') and many of the areas of more regulation are distinctly not liberal.

again, this might be true of what passes (today) for conservatism... it isn't what i mean by the term, however... today, there isn't a lot of difference between the two, from a strong central gov't pov - just differences between the things the gov't should be involved in

hrothgar, on 2010-November-06, 12:31, said:

In a similar vein, Andrew Sullivan's book The Conservative Soul tries to frame conservationism using Oakeshott as his primary lens.

Quote

“To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.”

well he said it better than i did, but that's pretty much what i was trying to convey... the labels conservative and liberal are dependent upon geographical times and places

[phil_20686]

helene_t, on 2010-November-06, 13:08, said:

In most European countries it might be fair to say that those who call themselves "liberal" are more pro freedom than "conservatives" and "socialists", although there could be exceptions such as some "liberals" being tough in immigration, as compared to socialists.

Strongly disagree. For example, in British politics labour were pro gay rights, but were the most illiberal government Britain has ever had, with constant legislative moves in favour of covert government surveillance, and generally strengthen the ability of governments to do whatever they liked with little or no oversight. Identity cards, extending the length you could be held without charge, national DNA register which could keep your DNA for no reason. Making it easier for Social services to take children from their parents. Setting targets for the number of children taken into care. Strengthening government is a constant temptation of the left. In that way the left is definitely more anti "freedom" than the right. The right in Europe tends to be about giving power back to the people. More local decisions etc etc.

It might be more accurate to call labour a socialist government, rather than a liberal government, but that is not the common term in Britian.

[helene_t]

phil_20686, on 2010-November-08, 09:58, said:

It might be more accurate to call labour a socialist government, rather than a liberal government, but that is not the common term in Britian.

What? Does anyone refer to Labour as a "liberal" party? I have never heard that. Anyway, I meant the parties calling themselves "liberal". German FDP, Dutch VVD and D66, British LibDems and such.

As I've understood it, it's a new thing that the British LibDems have become "left". Dutch VVD and German FDP are right-winged parties, arguably to the right of the conservatives.

[kenberg]

I have a high regard for the British mind but are they actually able to sort all of this out? It's so much simpler over here, either you go with the Mama Grizzly or the Muslim Socialist.