Serious Question: Liberals, Conservatives and freedom

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

I'm always hearing conservatives talk about how they're for liberty and getting the government off our backs, while liberals are for big government and controlling your life. I know this is bullshit, but I need help arguing this point without having to tediously list examples. I'm looking for witty, concise and quick arguments. I'm trying to move beyond simple name-calling (the hallmark of the Right), and engage in serious debate. Any thoughts?

[Mortensen]

1. A concise and quick point

If you need someone to do it for you, maybe you've gotten over your head.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

2. Yeah, maybe I'm just being lazy

There are plenty of clear examples to use. Thanks for settimg me straight.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rapier]

6. notes

This is an arguement that can't be won. Even the most perfectly conceived logical arguement won't sway a true believer, and no such arguement exists for such a broad subject.

Not for arguement but for mulling over when trying to be persuasive about such things I suggest two basic ideas to mull over and incorporate into your ideas and rhetoric. (rhetoric here not used in the pejorative sense, please look it up to get the proper definition)

1. Conservatives and especially neo cons want most of all to have an all powerful nation. Nationhood itself is the problem. At its core America was founded as an antidote to nations. It was conceived for citizens. Let the citizens be free and let the nation remain small. (not sure I've done a good job on this, sorry) Wanting to have a great powerful nation is the antithisis of small government.

2. A definition of liberalism
the overriding aim of liberalism as a political philosophy is "to secure the political conditions that are necessary for the exercise of personal freedom." Judith Shklar
Which is why racial civil rights was liberal. It has NOTHING to do with big government. In fact destroying Jim Crow laws was the dismanteling of government power. States rights wasn't and isn't about diminishing government power. States rights as used by segregationists was about state governments excercising ultimate power over individuals. Govenment should use it's power to assist the greatest number of people their personal freedom.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

8. Right. I agree.

Your examples are sound. I think you're right about this being an unwinnable argument though. I'll move on to bigger fish.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Stalin Was A Totalitarian -The Opposite Of Liberal

Totalitarian comes from the word total... Totalitarians want the government to have total control over a person's life. They want to eliminate the personal sphere and increase the governmental sphere to massive proportions.

Liberals want to expand human freedom by equipping all individuals to make their own decisions about life....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. I Have To Reply Myself

Stalin a liberal-sheesh.....


If Stalin was a liberal why did he succcede Lenin who o-v-e-r-t-h-r-e-w- the liberal democratic Kerensky government in Russia...

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

7. Well actually,

I'm more than prepared to debate with examples, its just that I was looking for strategies to change minds, and get their attention. My facts are clear enough, but if you want people to listen to your arguments, you need to convince them without being too wordy (I was not aiming to "dazzle" as you said). I was simply pointing out that I was more than capable of formulating arguments, its just that I was being lazy, and not taking the time to do so. If you wish to hear my ideas, that's fine, but my mind is hardly blank.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

18. Yeah, thanks a lot, Mortensen..

I'll keep that in mind.

P.S. BTW, your Stalin reference is weak. Stalin was a brutal dictator. His policies never secured personal freedom, nor were they intended to. Are you equating liberalism with Stalin? Not to sound ungrateful, but that's the silliest thing I've heard yet.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

40. You equated liberalism and socialism.

You said socialism was the liberal attempt to secure personal freedom, and that gave rise to Stalin. Socialism is not liberalism. How many times do we have to go over this?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LTR]

16. Better take a look at this:

The rules of the forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Let Him Stay

I want to see how he defends the remark that Stalin was a liberal.....

I thought it was Harry Truman and George Kennan, two cold war liberals that developed the containment theory which set up the conditions for communism's ultimate demise....

And Bush isn't a conservative, he's a true reactionary.... Burke was a true conservative.... He was for preserving the status quo but was open to change that was prudential....Bush has taken a wrecking ball to the existing world order.....

[charlie]

22. Speaking of George Kennan

He's mightily unhappy with Bush for this ginned-up invasion of Iraq (and not too thrilled with the Democrats for not putting up a more spirited counteroffensive against his cynical aims).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. You Said Stalin Was A Liberal -Yikes...

Stalin was a totalitarian, a collectivist, the exact opposite of liberal....

If you want to read about liberalism I suggest Locke and Mill, not Limbaugh and Coulter....

[Mortensen]

20. Stalin was, uh, sort of a liberal... I guess and stuff

That's not the point. When socialism was put in place, it made it that much easier for Stalin to roll in and take over. It's not like anyone could resist, was it? What they basically did was make themselves a huge defenseless target.

Socialism is not communism or Stalinism, but it can be an enabler.

[REP]

21. Who Said Anything About Socialism?

You were called upon to defend your statement that Stalin was a liberal. No mention of socialism was made.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

23. Now I get it,

since liberalism and socialism are one and the same, Stalin was a liberal. Get real. Liberalism and socialism are two different things. Now whose mind is blank? Thanks a lot, I've got my debating spirit back.

P.S. To all DU'ers on this thread: My apologies. I asked a poorly-worded question, in my 5 a.m stupor, not realizing the repurcussions. I guess it did draw out the Freeper though...

[bluesoul]

24. Mortensen

What does socialism have to do with liberalism? :crazy:

[Mortensen]

28. What does socialism have to do with liberalism?

Oh, only that they have modern philosophies that came from many of the same sources, share the same influences, advocates of both philosophies work together and are for most intents and purposes united in helping each other.... you know... that kind of small unimportant stuff...

[REP]

30. So You Assert

Document or retract - unless you don't mind looking dishonest.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[REP]

35. Take Your Own Advice

I see making outlandish arguments and then being unable to support them doesn't bother you at all.

If you bothered to take your own advice, you'd see that Liberalism and Socialism are two different things. That's okay - it'll be easier for you to understand when the picture book comes out.

[Mortensen]

38. Two different things: my point and your understanding

Yes, but they're both LEFT. Have you ever heard the phrase "left wing" in your life?

Nazism and conservatism are two different things, but they're rooted in the same right wing causes. THIS IS LEFT <- -> THIS IS RIGHT

[REP]

42. Nice Back-Pedal There

Yes, socialism and liberalism are both leftist philosophies, but they are not the same thing, as you yourself demonstrate by comparing conservatism and Nazism as both rightist philosophies, yet not the same thing.

Either you're backpedalling or need to improve your written communication style. I'm voting for "both."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Nazism And Totalitarianism Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin

because they both deny the importance of the individual...


When you deny the primacy of the individual in the name of some greater good you can justify any crime in the name of the state....

Nazism, Collectivism, and Totalitarianism are the antithesis of Liberalism....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. The Father Of Liberalism

was John Locke not Karl Marx


"Traditional Liberals" accepted many of the tenets of classical liberalism but saw the need to address the glaring inequalities a totally free market system caused lest it destroy itself...

[Mortensen]

36. Liberalism's daddy

Well, if you want to be anal about it I supposed you could say Jesus invented it. Either that or Guatama Buddha.

But who for all intents and purposes was responsible for it becoming so popular in the 20th century?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

37. FDR

FDR knew that capitalism was a neccessary yet insufficient system for preserving equal opportunity. Capitalism, in conjunction with programs like the New Deal, gave birth to modern liberalism

[Mortensen]

39. And FDR invented all left-wing thought, right?

Was this before or after he seperated the face of the earth from the waters?

Where did FDR get his inspiration of political philosophy from? Hmm?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

41. You asked who made it popular in the 20th century...

I never said he invented all leftist thought. Do you even read your own posts? I would agree, however, the Jesus' teachings were liberal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. He Got His Economic Philosophy From Keynes Who Was Anti-Socialist

nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Exactly-----

As Arthur Schlessinger has demonstrated in his seminal work on the New Deal FDR saved capitalism from itself by ridding it of it's excesses.....

The goal of liberals is to create an equal playing field where all can participate and enjoys the fruits of the capitalist system...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. You Are Conflating Communism, Socialism, Conservatism, and Liberalism..

I will grant you that there are some leftists who are statists... I am vigorously anti-statist....

Classical liberals believed in limited government and free markets.... I don't think anybody can say the Republican party believes in limited government any more...The Patriot Act... the appointment of John Ashcroft as AG, their unwavering anti-choice position....

Also, Bush's tarrifs on steel, his expansion of farm subsidies diminish his claim to be a free marketer....

Traditional liberals believed in many of the same tenets as the classical liberals but realized that free markets while largely efficient led to glaring inequalities....

They tried to address these inequalities through the welfare state and progressive taxation while leaving the freedoms that classical liberals revere in place....

I have read Hayek, Friedman, and Schumpeter and their fears of an overarching nanny state are well taken but I'm trying to find a middle ground between collectivism and dog eat dog, every man for himself indiviualism...

But you can't fit it on a bumper sticker....

[Mortensen]

31. As far as elections go...

It's all the same.

In this country's elections, middle of the road usually wins and those who argue the little points between socialism, communism, and liberalism all call themselves Democrats so a Republican doesn't get elected.

Communism, socialism... it's left. And the other guys are right. Vice vera for the Republicans. And that's really all that matters in this country's political world.

[rman]

43. Capitalism, Democracy can be enablers to

enablers of tyranny, fascism, whatever you wanna call it.

democracy: Hitler was elected

capitalism.. do i need say more?

[Democat]

4. The Patriot Act for starters

Bush has expanded the power of the federal government more than any other president in modern history.

Look around.

[mhr]

5. Largest Deficit

and largest federal debt in history.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Backatcha!

Accusation:
"Any government that's big enough to give you anything you want is also big enough to take it away." (usually attributed to Reagan)

Backatcha!:
"Any government that can crush every country in the world is also powerful enough to crush every one of its citizens."

--bkl

[rman]

27. Ascroft wants to regulate your bedroom activities

While corporations are being deregulated.

Liberals want to invest in the common good (schools, healthcare) and manage to reduce deficit, Repubs want to spend it on themselves (fraude, war) and increase deficit (while blaming some former Dem prez for it).

"Deficit spending is simply a scheme for confiscation of wealth."
- Alan Greenspan

[KharmaTrain]

29. Survival In Flying Monkey Land

I long ago stopped trying to "logic" or reason with CONservatives...especially Right Wingers, instead if they dare push my political buttons, they should expect to get it both barrels. I took this attitude in the Raygun years and have never lost when I've confronted a Wingnut...no matter how much of a hive-dweller they are.

Yes, it's frustrating to hear such garbage that defies reality, compassion and common sense, but if a person is brainwashed into the GOOP mantra, short of a total brain transplant, there's little that you can do other than either "earn their respect" or force them to back off.

Since I'm a Progressive, the Liberal tag is easily deflected. Also I'm a very fiscal Conservative...and dare to ask a Freeper if they ever took an unemployment or Social Security check (more the former than the later) and you can tell them they're socialists...LOL. The name-calling and stereotyping are a dead giveaway that the person using it has little to no substance and are easily tied in knots when presented with just a little bit of reality and logic...especially now since the GOOP is so entangled in its own hypocrisies.

Thank Ahnuld for virtually negating any moral credibility, the Iraq mess for the party's willingness to get your kid killed before theirs (a fun one to throw at them these days...especially if they have draft-age kids...just ask them to name any ranking Repugnican that either served or has their kids serving...you should be able to flick off Colin Powell quickly) negates it's looking out for the welfare of the American people, ask them how their making ends meet these days and dare them to blame it on Clinton and tell them their manchild has had 3 years to do something about things, if they use 9/11 as an excuse, again, the statue of limitations is wearing out on that excuse, and by the way, how is Osama?

In short, there are more and more ways every day to entangle a Wingnut and expect them to get more rash and personal as their causes start going down in flames.

You'll never "convert" someone whose gone over to the dark side. My hope is to shut them up, or lull them into the complacency that all is good...no need to waste your time voting or anything like that :evilgrin:

[LeahMira]

45. Let them tell you...

I'm always hearing conservatives talk about how they're for liberty and getting the government off our backs, while liberals are for big government and controlling your life. I know this is bullshit, but I need help arguing this point without having to tediously list examples.

You haven't said whether you're doing this in an e-mail or message board post or whether you're in a face-to-face conversation with someone you know.

Virtually, it's difficult because you don't know who you're speaking with and there's a limit to how much you can manage in one e-mail or post, but in person I'd limit the discussion to one or two areas. Ask the other person to provide a few examples where s/he feels the government is controlling and why s/he sees that as controlling. Then zero in on one example (the one you feel best prepared to discuss) and ask what would be the alternative and what would be the good and bad results if that alternative were implemented. Suggest a few yourself, if needed. Make sure you understand the other person's concerns and fears, not just their ideology. Try to lead the conservative to admitting that the bad results would outweigh any good ones.

My experience has been that conservatives focus on taxation and religious freedom issues, and these days on fear for the safety of the country, but you may find a different focus.

Generally, I've found that people really do want to live in a less "dog eat dog" world but they believe they aren't being "realistic" because the "other guy" is predatory and can't be trusted. If somehow you can help them to see that we humans have common needs and aspirations, but just different views on how those can be achieved, you've gone a long way towards dispelling the myth that liberals are all out to control everyone else's life.

It takes loads of time and patience, so I have no witty rejoinders to offer. Do laugh a little... it relaxes everyone, but not if it puts the other person down. For those kinds of witticisms you can bite your tongue. You don't like to be put down and neither does anyone else.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

46. Thanks a lot. That helped

All I needed was pointers on how which areas to focus on. I'm prepared now.