If you're a liberal, what would make you turn conservative?

[quote=“Chris”]I remember many years ago I went to visit my sister at UC Santa Cruz, which has one of the most liberal student bodies in the US. During conversations with some of her friends, I found myself being condemned for saying things that they didn’t consider “politically correct”. Here they were supposed to be liberals, but they were acting in a way I consider illiberal (i.e. restrictive of individual freedoms). It was an oppressive environment. I told them they have forgotten what it means to be a liberal.

The experience didn’t turn me off liberalism, because what they displayed was not liberalism. The same is true about the idiots who praise Che Guevara or who wear Osama bin Laden T-shirts: they aren’t liberals; they’re just nutcases.

9/11 didn’t turn me away from liberalism; it just confirmed to me the dangers of extreme conservatism on both the parts of the Islamic fundamentalists (few are more conservative than they are) and the GOP (who used it as an excuse to wage war on an unrelated country and to curb American freedoms).[/quote]

I went there UCSC from 88-90 and it definitely made me more conservative but I also lived in Orange County, Ca and the graveyard of thinking the conservative-psycho-christian zombies created was just as bad. So I gave up on the country and moved.

The far left liberals are really mind-nazis and political correctness was spinning out of control.

So I owned too many guns/ but supported environmentalism/ Was strongly against eco-terrorism (Earth First tried to recruit me) but loved explosives.Hated organized religions/ loved Sufi poetry.

I Got at UCSC shit for being a straight, white, male and working class. Hung out with the Mexican diswashers at the restaurant I worked in while going to school, had two other friends-one was a surfer/stoner classics major the other a 6’6 300 pound Iranian. I hiked, rode bicycles, motorcycles, surfed and stayed away from the crowd.

They gave me crap for my Edward Abbey inspired bumpersticker “REDNECKS FOR PEACE”

I helped kick out some violent ex-cons who crashed a neigbors hippy party early in my stay in UCSC with a replica 9mm Glock water pistol in my jacket pocket. After that I was known as “That guy with the gun” so mostly they left me alone after that.

Actually, this doesn’t surprise me one bit. Most gun-owners I know are hunters, and pretty much every hunter I know is also a dedicated environmentalist. The rationale is sensible: they love the great outdoors and want sustainable populations of game animals.

Actually, this doesn’t surprise me one bit. Most gun-owners I know are hunters, and pretty much every hunter I know is also a dedicated environmentalist. The rationale is sensible: they love the great outdoors and want sustainable populations of game animals.[/quote]

Imagine if everyone could afford to go bear hunting or deer hunting. There would be no animals left. In England they used to breed foxes for fox hunting in areas that didn’t have foxes. They would then say foxes are pests so we keep the numbers down. At the same time shipping some foxes from the south of England to the East of England. :slight_smile: Interesting.

Incidentally I am not against hunting, I used to go feretting a lot (and other things such as hair coursing) but always remembered that hypocrisy. I guess they couldn’t say oh we just enjoy prancing around on horses in pretty coats, and killing foxes!

Foxes have got red hair too, maybe that is why the English nancy boys in scarlet coats enjoy hunting them (oh no that’s another thread)

I reckon they should start the sport of hunting the English upper class with fox hounds. Would be more fun. Chasing them up a tree and shooting them down (well if there were any trees left in the East of England). That’s another envoronmental hypocrisy. In many parts of England and especially northern Ireland there are hardly any forests left. Used to be covered with forests until it industrailized. Now they want other nations to limit logging and slash and burn. First industralize then prevent other people from doing it. There was a movement to re-introduce wolves into the UK. Anyway most people complained saying it would be too dangerous. Then the UK complains and moans about tigers being killed in India. Choose a wolf or a tiger living near me I know what I would choose.

Certainly. During the Wendish Crusade, a group of German knights was given permission by the Pope to fulfill their vows not by fighting Muslims in the Holy Land, but traversing the Elbe River and conquering the Wendish pagans. The Pope was hesitant to spare such warriors, and unlike in the Holy Land Crusades, he insisted that the war be absolute: either the Wends had to completely convert to Christianity or be slaughtered. (As an interesting aside, this was another case that proves converts are the most fanatical of all the religious. The Wendish converts who joined the fighting in the Levant were famed for their bravery).

Also, a good argument could be made that Christians, throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period treated non-believers in their midst as bad or worse than Muslims treated their dhimmis. Dhimmitude in Muslim lands was not the utopia Muslim apologists make it out to be, but for the most part the dhimmis enjoyed long periods of consistently fair treatment. Infidels in Christendom lived in a greater state of flux. The most egregious example of course is the horrendous inquisitions that took place in Spain, Aragon, and Portugal after the Reconquista was completed in 1492. The remaining Jews and Muslims were given a simple choice: convert or die.

The difference, however, is that Christian violence is not doctrinal. As I’m sure you’re aware, a big source of contention between the Gentile Christians and the Romans was that families who had previously always sent their quotas of young men to serve the Empire now refused (the Jewish Christians were exempt like all Jews). Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” bit was taken at face value (no pun intended) and they refused to engage in any violence, even when they were subjected to official persecution by the Empire. Quakers and other small Christian sects still refuse to engage in violence of any kind.

I disagree. If a group of Christians got together and said they are going to invade a foreign nation and give the people a choice between converting to Christianity, accepting subjugation, or death, that would be completely out of sync with Christian doctrine. However, were Muslims to do the same thing, they would be following the Qur’an to the letter. Islam is not a “religion of peace” from a doctrinal point of view.

Having said that, I completely agree with you that normal Muslims can find a great deal of solace in Islam while simply ignoring the violent parts of the doctrine. And there are progressive imams that gloss over those parts or make a concerted effort to put everything into the proper historical context. One of the major problems happening now is that Saudi Arabia is often behind new mosque construction and renovation and insist that Wahhabist doctrine be preached or they’ll pull funding. That’s not good for the still small and struggling reformist movement.

I have argued previously that we do no favors to progressive Muslims by parroting the “Islam is a religion of peace” line, because that only serves to weaken their reformist platform. After all, why try to reform a religion of peace? That so many otherwise educated, intelligent liberals refuse to engage or accept any criticism of Islam, while at the same time taking every opportunity to bash Christianity, is a blatant hypocrisy that I can’t stomach.

[/quote]

An exceptionally wise & lucid comentary.
The author is obviously well-read in history. :thumbsup:
Fuggin 'A!

I totally concur, except for perhaps a few hair-splits about terminology.

I myself feel that it is the proponents of Sharia who are the real menace. As they paint themselves, as Atavistic Defenders of Islam, the whole socio-cultural morass that is Modern Islam gets lumped in with them.
Said morass would have already had it’s own enlightenment, yet for the precocious, violent assaults of the Salafist zealots on their own communities.

Much of the essential essence of modern Chistianity is surely a very fine part of it’s cause/effect relationship with the various trickle down effects of The Renaissance. The Enlightenment, and The Roaring Twenties…
Islam is not comfortable with change.
It’s about time it was.

Islam was comfortable with change and a leader in all sorts of discoveries and innovations. Just as China was.

The thing is, all of that stopped when they felt as if they were being invaded by foreigners and became almost completely conservative overnight.

Kinda like a certain place I know… :whistle:

To make me conservative, you would seriously have to shave off a few inches from my frontal lobe because short of a compromised sense of intelligence, I would never be persuaded to adapt the ideas of the right.

How did a certain set of beliefs become “liberal” and others “conservative”? There are ideas on both sides I believe in … or should I say that I belong to a different group altogether? I’m against racism, but I’m also against issues such as abortion, for instance. I think the time is coming when current political ideas will be sent to the garbage dump. The truth is that nobody falls into any of those groups. We all believe in different sets of beliefs. Instead of voting for parties, we should vote for issues.

And here we were, thinking you had a big d*ck. :laughing: Thanks for clearing that up.

Usually what changes 'em is a mortgage, raising children and understanding that some type of retirement plan is required.

Unless they’ve had a complete ‘libotomy’…that pretty much makes a useless whiner for the rest of their life.

How, exactly, does that make people more conservative? I know plenty of liberals, and child-rearing and homeowning hasn’t made them more conservative.

Indeed, having children has made many I know more concerned about environmental pollution, educational quality and healthcare, issues dear to the hearts of liberals.

Liberal thinking takes more courage.

Takes less.

Pretending that the hardships in life can all be solved if only the government had the right people in charge, and were given enough money and power to work its magic, is the cowardly path. Pretending that the tragedies we suffer are all the fault of some evil cabal or misguided policy that can be solved if only so-and-so were voted into office is the cowardly path.

Courage is required to face the fact that life will always involve a certain amount of suffering, and that fantasy solutions that call for giving even more power to the already powerful are likely to make things worse rather than better. Liberal thinking may well have its virtues. It is no doubt a warm and comforting anesthetic fantasy to imagine that life can be without pain if only we humans elected the right people and instituted the right policies… but such fantasies hardly require courage.

Takes less.

Pretending that the hardships in life can all be solved if only the government had the right people in charge, and were given enough money and power to work its magic, is the cowardly path. Pretending that the tragedies we suffer are all the fault of some evil cabal or misguided policy that can be solved if only so-and-so were voted into office is the cowardly path.

Courage is required to face the fact that life will always involve a certain amount of suffering, and that fantasy solutions that call for giving even more power to the already powerful are likely to make things worse rather than better. Liberal thinking may well have its virtues. It is no doubt a warm and comforting anesthetic fantasy to imagine that life can be without pain if only we humans elected the right people and instituted the right policies… but such fantasies hardly require courage.[/quote]

What you’ve just said doesn’t sound anything like liberal thinking. The fantasy solutions you mention about giving more power to the powerful sound more like conservative views than liberal views. In my experience, it’s the liberals that are out at the coalface, so to speak, giving their time and money to help bring about a fair go for all.

While conservatives are after tax breaks for the upper/richer members of society, liberals are after tax breaks for those at the bottom end of society in order to help lift those people out of poverty. It’s the liberals that call for equal access for all to education based on merit, not on money and contacts.

For all their faults (and there were a lot) the Clinton administration turned a budget deficit into a surplus, started/expanded many social and environmental programs that greatly benefited those at the bottom of society, and presided over a strong economy. And they did that with the “smallest” government in 50 years. You want to talk about throwing more power to those that don’t need it, wasteful, “big” government etc, well, the conservatives in the US are the masters at it.

Liberalism’s great fallacy is the belief that more government equals a better society.

Conservatism’s great fallacy is the belief that free market capitalism is a cure-all for the common cold.

Caught between the Scylla and Charbydis of government and corporate power.

Takes less.

Pretending that the hardships in life can all be solved if only the government had the right people in charge, and were given enough money and power to work its magic, is the cowardly path. Pretending that the tragedies we suffer are all the fault of some evil cabal or misguided policy that can be solved if only so-and-so were voted into office is the cowardly path.

Courage is required to face the fact that life will always involve a certain amount of suffering, and that fantasy solutions that call for giving even more power to the already powerful are likely to make things worse rather than better. Liberal thinking may well have its virtues. It is no doubt a warm and comforting anesthetic fantasy to imagine that life can be without pain if only we humans elected the right people and instituted the right policies… but such fantasies hardly require courage.[/quote]A rare caricature from you, Hobbes. Instead of a return volley on the myth of bootstrapping, or the modern res publican myth that the freedom you enjoy in your household (how many ping?), and the freedom Bill Gates enjoys in his (Microsoft Corp.) are one and the same…

how about “imagining that some of the hardships in life can be solved if we collectively have the imagination, will, resources, and coordination to take them on” makes you a liberal, whereas “believing that none of the hardships in life can be solved, no matter the resources or energy dedicated to them, unless individuals make it happen for themselves” makes you a conservative?

In the main, both statements are true. Make one your default position, you’re a liberal; the other, a conservative. Know which applies, when and why: wise.

My own default position: We are responsible for ourselves, but to many others.

Which makes me a liberal so far left that many here must get a kink in the neck trying to spot where I’m coming from. But I don’t think the application of what flows from that position is possible without courage… and interestingly you and I agree more often than not.

Both sides of the aisle want ‘the right people in charge’, Hobbes. Both want ‘the right policies’. Sometimes the only difference between liberals and conservatives is which policies each would prefer. They can want the same size budget, and simply have different priorities on how to spend it.

[quote]Takes less.

Pretending that the hardships in life can all be solved if only the government had the right people in charge, and were given enough money and power to work its magic, is the cowardly path. Pretending that the tragedies we suffer are all the fault of some evil cabal or misguided policy that can be solved if only so-and-so were voted into office is the cowardly path.

Courage is required to face the fact that life will always involve a certain amount of suffering, and that fantasy solutions that call for giving even more power to the already powerful are likely to make things worse rather than better. Liberal thinking may well have its virtues. It is no doubt a warm and comforting anesthetic fantasy to imagine that life can be without pain if only we humans elected the right people and instituted the right policies… but such fantasies hardly require courage[/quote]

Total nonsense.

Liberal thinking is to open your mind to the possibility that what is controlling or constraining you might possibly be wrong. It is about having the courage to face uncertainty while embracing a humanistic view of the world.

Do you think the civil rights movement in America was the love child of some conservative think tank?

Do you think fighting for the rights of people to have the freedom to make the tough compelling hard moral choices that shape the direction of humanity is for the faint of heart?

What makes you think liberals don’t have to face the facts of life? We’d just rather face them on our feet than on our knees. If you think the facts of life make you a conservative then you are a spiritual coward.

It doesn’t bother me in the least that I have kids and a mortgage. That’s not going to make me think for one minute it’s time to lock up all unlawful entry immigrants coming into my country in some Outback detention center and fry all the little kiddies’ brains. I start to ask questions. Try to think things through a little.

When I see things like that guy who stood in front of the tanks after the Tiananmen square massacre, I’m hoping my government might have the courage to bring a little pressure to bear, not bend over a barrel. I’m not thinking, “Gee we better tread carefully here or Google, Yahoo! and Cisco systems might not make some obscene fortune feeding some soulless mercantile monster. I’m thinking, 'Hey say, ‘Fuck you!’”

I’m thinking ask the questions. Have some courage. Change the world.

What conservatives ought to do is get with the times a little bit. That might take some courage. As liberals, we understand that.

Takes less.

Pretending that the hardships in life can all be solved if only the government had the right people in charge, and were given enough money and power to work its magic, is the cowardly path. Pretending that the tragedies we suffer are all the fault of some evil cabal or misguided policy that can be solved if only so-and-so were voted into office is the cowardly path.

Courage is required to face the fact that life will always involve a certain amount of suffering, and that fantasy solutions that call for giving even more power to the already powerful are likely to make things worse rather than better. Liberal thinking may well have its virtues. It is no doubt a warm and comforting anesthetic fantasy to imagine that life can be without pain if only we humans elected the right people and instituted the right policies… but such fantasies hardly require courage.[/quote]

One of most intelligent things I’ve read on this forum in 2 years.

delete

The one clear thing on this thread is that people have entirely different definitions of liberal and conservative. Can anyone one hear give a definition in the abstract? (i.e. without reference to a certain evil politician or his party)

As a non-American joining in what appears to be an all-American debate where the terms “liberal” and “conservative” may not mean exactly what they do in other countries (and as Redandy points out there are problems of definition in America even then) it seemes to me that when it comes to corruption conservatives are not exactly innocent either. Their philosophy of “Give the few of us who have an enormous amount of money and power the top jobs and we promise we will use it to do what’s best for all the rich people and the rest of you may, if you’re lucky get a few crumbs” (the core of the Conservative philosophy as I see it throughout the world) inevitably corrupts whichever leaders you put in those positions of power because they have to pander to the rich and powerful. At least the liberals have to think about the poor and powerless some of the time and the welfare systems that they have instigated in various parts of the world have, with all their flaws, saved millions from utter destitution and desperation. During the 80s I was unemployed and facing a bleak future in the UK. Eventually I managed to pull myself up by my bootstraps but the unemployment benefit system there helped me keep my head above water. You never know when you need some help to get through the bad times and I frankly see conservatives as generally a selfish me-first bunch. Maybe that’s prejudiced but as far as I’m concerned that’s what my experience has taught me. And no, I’m not in favour of stopping entrepreneurs or super massive taxes. The opposite policies are not incompatible with having some concern for the poor and the unfortunate.