Myself, I define conservatism as pro-decentralism, non-interventionism in foreign affairs, pro-sound money, low taxes/low spending, pro-property rights, pro-life, culturally conservative (but tolerant), and limited voting rights. I consider Dr. Paul, Robert A Taft, Dr. McDonald, the Old Right, and Grover Cleveland to be icons of conservatism. I believe that Dr. Paul is a theologically conservative voluntaryist.
I define liberalism as pro-globalism, culturally liberal and intolerant of cultural conservatism, universal suffrage, and an interventionist "humanitrarian" foreign policy. I consider FDR and Wilson to be icons of liberalism and to a lesser extent, the neoconservative Bush family.
Of course, I could be wrong about all that, but I always think of confederalism as on the right, and forced globalism (centralized government) to be on the left.
Does working within the semantics of statist positions usefull?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
limitgov,
I think the fact that nearly everything you called conservative was at one time considered liberal, and the things you call liberal are currently endorsed by ALL politicians, makes your definitions pretty useless.
I tend to think of conservativism as a philosophy which tries to conserve or maintain the status quo, or maybe a return to "the good old days." It is traditional in nature, and sees tradition (in political structures and moral institutions) as the framework upon which society will flourish. Liberalism, on the other hand, is forward looking. The liberal believes that society will flourish as people as freedom and liberty increases.
Interestingly, what constitutes a conservative is really dependent on place and time. A French conservative in 1800 is trying to restore a central monarch while an American conservative in the 1940's is trying to restore laissez-faire and isolationism.
With liberals, I think its a disagreement as to what frameworks need to exist in order to maximize liberty. The idea that "no man is free while another is in chains" drives the modern left liberal to support equality because he believes it is a precondition of liberty. Classical liberals, instead, see private property as a precondition of liberty and reject wealth redistribution on those grounds.
Also, liberalism and conservativism aren't mutally exclusive. Ron Paul is a liberal in the broadest sense, but he is conservative in the narrow historical context of the American Old Right.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
I think 'progressive' is probably a less ambiguous term for FDR and Wilson. What's called 'neoconservatism' now actually has its ideological heritage in Trotskyite communism, funnily enough.
'Classical liberalism' is basically political libertarianism. In America today, the term "liberal" when left unqualified usually means progressive. In Europe and the rest of the world, it tends to mean something closer to classical liberalism. Mises can be regarded as a liberal in such a context.
It's antiquated theology. The relevant question in politics is the use of force. Most people who would embrace either term today have no problem with the use of force, on any scale, for just about any reason they can think of.
"Onset of Dementia"
The liberal versus conservative paradigm is elaborated by the Nolan Chart.
The chart is okay, but the terms liberal and conservative as applied are deplorable.
The terms as applied have debased the public's understanding of the constitution and have corrupted civics.
If David Nolan were not already physically dead, he should be forced to make a public apology!
Conservative means cautious of change and liberal means supporting the "liberation" of people.
conservare-"to preserve"
liberalis-"of freedom"
"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgments."-Albert Einstein
** Advocate to Abandon Civic Ignorance **
The "left wing liberalism" versus "right wing conservatism", paradigm as ascribed to the Nolan Chart, is corrupting public understanding.
Firstly, libertarianism emphasizes a deontology of negative wrights, which are negative obligations an prohibitions on government for both economic and civil policies, which establish individualism.
An antonym of libertarianism is authoritarianism which emphasizes the consequentialism of positive wrights, which are positive obligations or positive actions on government, which establish collectivism or communism.
The term liberalism is rooted in the term libertarianism, however the vernacular of liberalism implies civil libertarianism and economic authoritarianism, which is a corruption of implicit terminology.
The term conservatism is rooted in authoritarianism, however the vernacular of conservatism implies civil authoritarianism and economic libertarianism, which is a corruption of implicit terminology.
Those who refer to themselves as conservatives blabber on about limited government, however in reality, they banter for economic libertarianism and otherwise banter for civil authoritarianism through government.
Those who refer to themselves as liberals blabber on about limited government, however in reality, they banter for civil libertarianism and otherwise banter for economic authoritarianism through government.
The terms liberal and conservative are useful as mindless terms for partisan classification, which do little more than relieve either group of a responsibility for philsopohical consistency in political reason.
Use of the terms liberal and consevative is a mockery of reason and only serves to dumb down the basis of public opinion.
Left and right are sufficient, even though religious pretences of chirality and handedness purport that left handedness is sinisterial (sinister, for reproof) while the right handedness is dextral (dexterity, for blessing).
Verily, an analysis of any particular political position should be described in degrees of libertarianism or authoritarianism.
If one takes a position that is libertarian, so be it.
If one takes a position that is authoritarian, so be it. But do not pretend that all is black or all is white while the obvious colour held in hand is grey.
Are the terms conservative and liberal really all that well defined or can they mean an unlimited number of things?
conservative = setting oneself up for an outmoded losing position, who speaks "tough" only because they can afford to, as they're so out of fashion they have no real say or power in relevant society. If one recognizes this, you than take on the air of a cynical "self defeating" (which is a nonsense phrase) position to add a little "mystic" air about oneself. A nonsense losing position of inevitable extinction that talks in an esoteric language with the losers of political society to make onself feel better.
liberal = a word that some relevant people still take seriously, hence an automatically better term to try to talk to people about if one is actually trying to communicate with people on matters that can be discussed universally.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
A nonsense losing position of inevitable extinction that talks in an esoteric language with the losers of political society to make onself feel better.
You define that passage. The language you use is exactly as you describe. Someone should graffiti that on your digital stoop. You're posts sound so spiteful and resentful. vive reminds me of the Marquis...
Conservatism tends toward upkeep of the current methedology of governance. In our case, a wholly corrupt, nepotistic, fascism.
For God's sake, why can't we infer that "Conservatism" means "environmentalism"?
Liberalism has come to become a, sort of, symbol for exuberance. Anything you can get, "do as thou whilst" , you want it take it, etc, etc.
Liberty, means today, freedom from morality and love of passion and excess.
Liberal and conservative are pretty useless terms because they require a context in order to be defined. On the other hand, a political philosophy does not require a given context in order to be understood. This, however, is difficult for some people to understand.