what is the difference between liberalism and conservatism?

Question

i am just trying to figure out which category i fall under...thanks!!

Answer 1

In its broadest terms, liberalism is a movement to make society more liberal, progressive and effect political and social change. (Examples of liberalism are the movement for more civil rights for minorities, same sex marriages, less governmental intrusion on individual lives. )Conservatism is a movement to bring back society to some point in time when values were traditional and different from the current ones. (Examples include the movement to keep marriages only between heterosexuals, ban abortion for only the most severe of circumstances, and movements to bring back the traditional family values of mom, dad and kids.) It is not a new phenomena, by many means. At one time, monarchies were considered conservatism and governments ruled by a government leader with a Parliament or some form of legislature were considered liberalism. Enlightenment was considered liberalism over the old line. Think John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau versus Thomas Hobbes.

In the U.S., liberalism tends to be associated with progress- ism in which the individual rights and liberties of individuals are paramount, while conservatism tends to harken to a day in which religion and strong law and order were prevalent and individual rights and liberties were curbed.

It is NOT a battle between Democrats versus Republicans, because not all Democrats are liberal (many are moderate, even conservative) while not all Republicans are conservative (many are moderate, even liberal).

Rather the differences between the two terms are philosophical in nature.

Answer 2

Try not to put yourself under any heading or banner and decide on each issue based on information and due consideration. Don't decide out of fear of rejection by one side or the other. Or both.
I live in a country where many of the social services, health care etc were often described by my American uncle as "socialist". With a single word he could dismiss ideas like universal health care and subsidised pharmaceuticals because it did not fit in his republican box. Yet in this country they are considered the norm and not an issue to debate.

Answer 3

There are a number of different ways to describe the differences, but one of my favorites is described in "The Federal Courts, Politics, and the Rule of Law," by John C. Hughes (published 1995):

"In the contemporary political context, those who fear conformity have tended to describe themselves as liberal and have tended to applaud judicial 'protection' of human rights. Those who fear diversity have tended to call themselves conservatives and have been appalled by judicial 'usurpation' of the majority's discretion to form the kind of community it finds most conducive to its own happiness. The former tends to approve of the expansive theories of constitutional interpretation, while the latter tends to prefer the restrained theories of judicial review. These alignments are neither perfect nor inevitable, but the debate has surely been shrill."

Answer 4

If you like telling people what to do and enjoy attacking the defenseless your a conservative.
If you think people should do what ever they want and you care for people and think the laws all our ancestors fought for are important; if not everything, your a liberal.

Answer 5

Neoconservatives lie for money and power. Liberals lie because they are stressed out by neoconservatives.

Answer 6

A recheck of your terminology may be beneficial if you're referring to politics.

Answer 7

Here's an article one of my favourite writers wrote recently on that exact topic

http://olimu.com/Journalism/Texts/Commentary/LeftRight.htm

Answer 8

In general, Conservatives believe in rewarding those who are productive and penalizing those who are not, while Liberals believe in penalizing those who are productive and rewarding those who are not.
Liberals respond to human need by creating social programs to do things for people. If someone is hungry, give them food; if they are homeless, give them a house. Liberals epitomize government as a benevolent parent whose purpose is to make life easier for their children by doing things for them. "But wait a minute," you say, "doing things for people seems generous and humane. What's wrong with it?"
It Creates Dependency.

What's wrong is that doing things for people cripples them by fostering dependency. People who have things done for them never learn the skills they need to be self-reliant and are dependent on someone else to take care of them.

An old Hindu proverb says, "If you want to feed a man for a day give him a loaf of bread. If you want to feed him for a lifetime teach him to make bread." Liberals respond compassionately to hunger by giving bread, never realizing they are crippling the recipient. This short-term benevolence stifles independence by teaching the person to rely on someone else to provide for him. True compassion considers the long-term effects of intervention and chooses that form of intervention that empowers the person to take care of himself.
Humanitarian souls are perplexed to discover one of the ironies of charity. Once dependent on another to survive, the dependent person resents his benefactor. He learns to resent the one on whom he is dependent because dependency implies a superior-inferior relationship. This is not always incidental. Acts of short-sighted charity are frequently motivated by the unconscious need of the one dispensing it to feel superior to the one receiving it. A relationship characterized by a fusion of hunger and hostility is inevitable.
The dependent person also becomes resentful when his needs are not met to his satisfaction. Taught that he "deserves" to be taken care of, he resents it when he is not. Since he has learned to hand responsibility for meeting his needs to another he resents the other when those needs are not met.
Not only does paternalistic assistance create dependency - it perpetuates it. The acceptance of assistance too frequently results in the abdication of self-reliance. Park Rangers at national and state parks warn against feeding the animals. One reason is that the animals learn to rely on being fed and quit feeding themselves. Acts of benevolence only providing for immediate needs reinforces dependency unless coincident with independence empowering intervention.

I once was asked by county government to evaluate a single woman with nine children who was pregnant with her tenth. Each child had a different father. County officials thought she didn't understand about contraception. She understood. This street-wise lady laughed as she said, "Hell, I get a hundred dollars a month for each child. I don't take care of any of them, they're all farmed out to relatives. Every time I need a raise in pay I have another child." However noble the motivation, it was witless. In effect, she was being paid to be irresponsible.

A psychological truism says "Rewarded behavior is learned behavior." When irresponsible behavior leads to a financial reward (governmental dole) irresponsible behavior will proliferate.

It is ironic that citizens in a country founded on self-reliance and independence get angry because government won't take care of them. Our ancestors came to this country to escape excessive governmental control. They believed they could take care of themselves better than the government could. While they fought a war to throw off of the yoke of political patronage and secure their right to self-reliance and independence the inheritors of their legacy complain that government doesn't do enough for them. Even more ironic is the demand that government tax the affluent more so their dole can be increased. What results, is nothing more than mutual slavery. As further assistance is accepted, greater dependency ensues. With greater dependency comes increased need and the productive segment of society becomes locked in a symbiotic relationship with the non-productive
Doing things for people also destroys self-esteem and self-respect. Self-esteem is the belief you are worth living successfully and self-respect is the belief you are living successfully. A feeling of competence is essential to both. Giving people things instead of letting them earn them precludes the development of competence. Without the perception of competence and the belief that one is capable of managing one's life there can be no self-respect or self-esteem. Both are essential to getting off the dole and becoming a productive person.

Well intentioned, but illogical efforts to help the disadvantaged would be funny if not so tragic. A city in Northern California established a city garden to provide vegetables for needy families. They cajoled donations from community businesses to buy land, seeds, and equipment. They solicited volunteers from the local citizenry to work the fields. They appealed for volunteers to pack and deliver the food. A noble gesture on the face of it. But by failing to involve the recipients of this largesse in the process they overlooked a valuable opportunity. Of how much greater service to the needy if they let those who benefited till, plant, weed, and harvest the crop. An opportunity to develop self-reliance and personal pride was lost.
Doing things for people divides groups into "Us" and "Them." It reinforces the fallacy there is some intrinsic difference between the productive and unproductive. It perpetuates the idea the "Haves" and the "Have-nots" represent different types of people instead of representing different levels of effort. This belief creates frustration and impotence. The belief that success is an equation of time, effort, and ability, and anyone can aspire to it, creates hope and opportunity. Doing things for people is not participatory democracy it is benevolent dictatorship. Liberals despise a social caste system, yet their actions create it.
CONSERVATIVES DO THINGS WITH PEOPLE

Conservatives believe in social programs which permit people to earn the benefits they receive and which foster self-reliance. Social programs emphasizing a participatory investment by the person benefiting are more effective than programs only requiring an investment from the benefactor. Without personal investment there can be no sense of accomplishment, no sense of pride, and no sense of ownership. Doing things for people cripples them, while doing things with people enables them. To be effective, social programs designed to raise the standard of living for people must follow certain guidelines.

Reject Entitlement - Endorse Empowerment.

The concept of entitlement is based on the assumption "someone else is responsible for my welfare." In psychological parlance that represents an "external locus of control." That is the belief that your life is controlled by circumstances external to yourself. It is a belief associated with low self-esteem, depression, suicide, and other undesirable outcomes. An "internal locus of control" otherwise known as personal responsibility and reflected in the statement "If it is to be, it's up to me" produces a robust mental health and a productive citizen. Any social program not confirming and requiring personal responsibility is destined to fail. Empowering people to take responsibility for their own success and happiness should be the focus of social intervention.

A fitting rule of thumb is, "Don't give someone anything you want him to respect - let him earn it." In general, we respect other people's property less than we respect our own. The obligation to earn what one needs for a better standard of living leads to a sense of ownership. What is earned is appreciated and respected. To understand this, just take a look at government housing projects. The graffiti and state of disrepair is mute testimony to a lack of respect for self or property. The politics of entitlement simply doesn't work because it robs people of the one thing they need to become productive - a sense of ownership. Things that are given can never truly be owned. If you give someone a gift, it's yours. If you let him earn it, he owns it. Liberals believe in a "hand out," Conservatives believe in a "hand up."

Don't Remove Consequences.

In a misguided effort to safeguard their children thoughtless parents intervene between behavior and consequence. They provide rationalizations, excuses, apologies, and in general nullify the one factor that has the power to modify behavior - consequences. Removing consequences removes the opportunity to learn cause and effect relationships. Parents who systematically protect children from the consequences of their actions develop children with no impulse control. A government that legislates away consequences, or worse provides benefits in place of consequences, creates the very problem they are trying to correct - the problem of irresponsible behavior.

A mother whose seventeen year old son had beaten her, virtually destroyed the house with drunken parties, stolen her car, and been arrested for using and dealing drugs complained to me he was uncontrollable. She explained she had been passively resigned to his excesses and criminality because she feared his reprisal. She had just returned from the courts where she had successfully argued to have her son released into her custody.

I asked with apparent sincerity, "Does he drink from bottles labeled poison when he's thirsty? Does he walk in front of semi-trucks on the freeway because he wants to get to the other side? Does he step off ten-story buildings because it is a quicker way to get to the bottom?"

"Of course not," she retorted to each question.

"Then it sounds to me," I said "He is perfectly able to control his behavior when the consequences are sure and certain. It's only when the consequences are ambiguous or missing he is uncontrollable."

What can be expected from people when the consequences of irresponsible and foolish behavior are removed, or worse, rewarded? How will they learn the relationship between their behavior and the consequences in their life? It's true not everyone learns from consequences, but no one learns without them.

Make Assistance Conditional on Life-Affirming Behavior.

Requiring life-affirming behaviors from people is a sign of love and acceptance, not indifference and rejection.

The focus of any social program should be to strengthen people, not to placate and appease them in order to secure their vote.


The old parental adage "This is for your own good" is appropriate for government in dealing with some adults. "I am denying you a free ride and requiring you to earn what you get, for your own good."

Emphasize to the needy person he is part of the family and you love him, and that is why you require his personal investment in the program designed to help him. As you provide assistance he must reciprocate by helping himself. To allow social programs that do not demand a reciprocal and equal contribution by those benefiting is not an act of caring. If you care about a person you don't support behaviors leading to his deterioration. You only support conduct leading to his betterment. As much as it may be painful to both benefactor and recipient external involvement in a person’s life must promote the ultimate good of the individual, not merely the removal of immediate discomfort.

Government's rightful purpose is to defend its citizens from external and internal threats. Government’s purpose is to protect its citizens, not provide for them. Government should only do for people what they are unable to do for themselves. The true function of government is not to give things to its citizens, but to remove the barriers preventing citizens from giving those things to themselves.

Live A Life You Would Be Proud To Have Them Imitate.

The kindest thing you can do for the "disadvantaged" is to live a life you would be proud to have them imitate and do nothing preventing them from doing the same. Prove by your own success it can be done and encourage them to do it. Don't feel guilty because you enjoy the fruit of your labor, consider yourself a role model. Benevolence isn't giving to others for free what it took you hard effort to accomplish. Benevolence is extending the same opportunities and privileges to others combined with the same obligations and responsibilities.

Opportunity and privilege are not free. They have costs. The cost of opportunity is obligation and the cost of privilege is responsibility. "To whom much is given, of him is much required."