Few people seem to be able to correctly attach a political position to these terms, as evidenced by the two questions in my history asking what both terms mean. They've just become generic insults the right and left trade. Few liberals attacking neo-conservatives have read Strauss or Kristol or really seem to know much about neo-conservatism. Likewise the right attacking liberals seem to know or credit little about the history of liberalism, and seem oblivious to the fact that the majority of politicians left and right self-identified as liberals just a few decades ago. And the irony of course is that they're very similar positions - neo-conservatism is essentially liberalism and an acceptance of leftish ideas like welfare state on social issues, but with hawkish foreign policy. Both ideas are actually quite beautiful as political philosophies, but nobody seems to care about the idealogies. Has our bickering stripped these terms of meaning, and should we do away with them?
2006-10-07 00:21:12 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, they're not meaningless; they've come to represent the worst in people. Even though neo-cons and liberals are just buzz words, the meaning is hidden in their application; I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about Marx or Strauss, but I read philosophers like Hegel, and I do understand that there isn't much more to a self-proclaimed "I'm a liberal and proud" person other than that they think they are calling on a side on a ball game.
The US needs to encourage critical theory and new political ideas. History and fact-checking in debates has become a kind of 'gotcha!' politics, with either side in a perpetual orwellian stage. It's about proving who's 'right' and 'wrong' without discussing new possibilities, and smearing the other side as inherently corrupt and false. Such as communism; okay, there's been plenty of attempts, but the implications of an American communism? Still, who's going to even think that far ahead? After all, all communism is wrong.
You're right, both left and right principles can be mixed to create hybrids. It's not a world of black and white. But who wants to know.
2006-10-07 00:58:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes, because no one knows what they really mean/stand for anymore. They are political 'catch-phrases' to inspire fear and dislike between people. There are so many shades of each, so to speak, that they CANNOT be lumped together.
2006-10-07 01:22:05 · answer #2 · answered by Diana 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In reality if a person was truly liberal or Conservative, they would not belong to either party. Both parties are a hod-podge of positions based on nothing other than being in opposition of the other.
2006-10-07 01:16:37 · answer #3 · answered by tom l 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes lets.. I thought they were useless to begin with. We all have independant ideas , dividing people into left and right or what ever "camps" does nothing to further understanding...But what would radio talks shows talk about...???
2006-10-07 00:32:22 · answer #4 · answered by oldtreeplanter 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
AMEN. yes, both these labels have been used far too much and their use should stop.
2006-10-07 01:51:47 · answer #5 · answered by Brooks B 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, they work just fine.
2006-10-07 02:14:15 · answer #6 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely, but it'll never happen.
2006-10-07 01:05:29 · answer #7 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋