Dull thoughts on a shiny, shiny world.
First of all for all the readers out there who somehow haven't chanced upon this fact, I'm not an American. I'm not even a Texan. I'm not going to be so condescending as to say that I'm from the proud country of Not America (anyone who doesn't understand what that means should stop reading here; I will continue to use words of three syllables or more, and frankly I doubt you should contribute even if you agree with me). I'm an Australian, and therefore in my country we don't speak in terms of liberals and conservatives.

The local conservative party (insomuch as we have one) is called the Liberal Party, and currently holds both houses of parliament, thus allowing it to act entirely according to whim. In ideology it's perhaps closest to the American Democratic party. By this I mean that it pursues an aggressive foreign policy largely based on creating alliances and creating new diplomatic and trade links in order to achieve a neoliberal world order. Unlike any known US party, it's against trade tariffs and barriers, and has unsuccessfully lobbied against them for years.

It supports the War on Terror and will go 'all the way with GWB" (pronounce GWB the Indonesian way and you'll get the rhyming deal; the phrase was last used with LBJ, so it's a little dated).

The main opposition party is the Labor Party. They do not hold power in any house of parliament, but do control interests in every single state and territory. In ideology they are perhaps closest to the American Democratic Party, although from recent behaviour they have a certain spineless appeasement tinge which is rather embarrassing. Last time they were in power they pursued an aggressive foreign policy largely based on creating alliances and creating new diplomatic and trade links in order to achieve a neoliberal world order. Unlike any known US party, they are against trade tariffs and barriers, and have unsuccessfully lobbied against them for years.

They support the War on Terror but not how it's fought. They will still, however, do whatever is asked of them by the Liberals or the US.

Domestically Labor tends to be decidedly communist by American standards, and the Liberals merely dangerously Socialist (although they have been steadily liberalising (ie removing) most social welfare programs, which from a liberal perspective can only be commended). Both have indulged in privatisation in the past, with the predictable damage to utility efficiency and availability.

Now what I don't understand is this. What are the real differences between a conservative and a liberal? I've watched these pages for over a year now, and still don't see this difference. There seems to be a lot of socialists on these pages - it's a common tendency I think, particularly amongst those labelled liberals. And there seems to be a fair few budding dictators as well, both left-wing (Stalin-esque) and right-wing (Saddam-ahoy!). There are some very public libertarians - Gid in particular always makes a good argument for his views, even if I consider them frightening.

But where are these conservatives and liberals? The ones most commonly labelled conservatives seem to be liberals; they like neoliberal policies, or support neoimperial foreign policies. Some of course are great traditionalists - a big shout out to the religious right, who can always be relied on for an intriguing approach to a problem I'd probably consider solved. But at the same stroke they often have very little respect for the maintenance of ancient institutions, or the maintenance of ancient standards or laws. In fact some times these conservatives even seek to have new laws put into place!

So naturally I can't reconcile that with conservatism, that old and most reputable of viewpoints. Most of them are little more than neoliberal radicals seeking to avoid the stigma of their heritage.

Hmmm, perhaps that's it. Maybe my foreignness prevents me from understanding the political spectrum from the American perspective.

Is it simply that what I would consider a socialist is an American liberal, and what I would consider a liberal is an American conservative? An anarchist an American libertarian? A socialist an American Red Commie Bastard? An American radical a fighter for the 70s and an American conservative the equivalent of an Australian radical?

Or is there some horrible flaw in my logic that drink and youth have clouded?

How do you reconcile politics with perspective?"

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Dec 10, 2005
My brother lived in Queensland for a couple of years back in the mid 80s. Being an American in Australia, he had a lot of fun with the "same word different concept" thing. He used to describe is as actually trying to live out Abbot & Costello's "Who's On First". ;~D

I think if you can describe it, you have half the battle licked.... but only half. ;~D
on Dec 10, 2005
The difference is that Liberals are very secure with their beliefs. They work to make them reality. Sometimes they appear to be unpopular, but only because the media often presents them as a bunch of loonies. But in reality, they are the one that will bring about any positive changes in the States and anywhere else in the world.
The Conservatives on the other hand are basically a bunch of mindless idiots. They have no solid agenda so resort to name calling any chance they get. The moron that represents them as President today is held up on a pedestal, but it will fall one day. The wheels of progress cannot be stopped, they can get stuck on occassion, but they will eventually move forward.
on Dec 10, 2005
Hmmm. The only difference I've personally been able to detect so far is liberal is spelled l-i-b-e-r-a-l and conservative is spelled c-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e.

Here in Canada we have both. Our liberals and conservatives like to keep it real simple for the population to understand who they are, so, the liberals call themselves The Liberal Party and the conservatives call themselves The Conservative Party. Now the socialists, of which I am one, are a little more clandestine. They call themselves The NDP. NDP is an acronym for New Democratic Party. See how subtle and clever they are, connecting democratic principles and socialist government.

Seriously though, the more I read on JU from both sides of their political spectrum, the less distinctive both sides become. The lines get blurred. However, recent articles suggest an easy way to determine who is who. Apparently, and I have this from the highest authority, stupid, petulant, lazy name-callers are liberal and intelligent, patient, forthright choirboys are conservatives. Well, that clears that up. ::


Great article cactoblasta. Have an insightful on me.
on Dec 10, 2005
The Conservatives on the other hand are basically a bunch of mindless idiots. They have no solid agenda so resort to name calling any chance they get.


ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think people tend to worry too much about a name--a label if you will. "Those stupid moronic liberals!" "Those lying bastard conservatives." Really? Who CARES? Can you honestly say that all conservatives are mindless idiots? Can you say that all liberals are on the Harvard Law staff? No. It's crap. And people spend so much time b*tching and moaning about how stupid the other side is that nothing productive gets done. It's like...if I refused to work with someone because his name is Jim. If you (meaning Americans) think our country is so screwed up, you've got to get over the label, come with a spirit of compromise, and work together instead of assuming that everyone on the other side of the table who has a different label is a moron. Very well written, cacto. It's interesting to see an "outsiders" perspective.
on Dec 10, 2005
"The Conservatives on the other hand are basically a bunch of mindless idiots. They have no solid agenda so resort to name calling any chance they get. The moron that represents them as President today is held up on a pedestal, but it will fall one day.


Mmm, yes. I'm an idiot, Brad's an idiot, William F Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Henry Kissenger, Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill and a host of great thinkiers, theologians, presidents, scholars, business leaders... we all bow to the intellectual superiority of Manopeace. Granted, it might help if HE knew what Conservatism was before he started instructing people in it...

If you want a perspective that isn't totally deranged, cacto, I would suggest checking the many online encyclopedia, and the many articles on Conservatism. I found several when I Googled. I don't think you'll get nearly as good a feel for it listening to the rantings of any of us.

Conservatism is a diverse philosophy, with many flavors. Most "Great Minds" from the past would probably be conservative today if you quizzed them on their feelings toward Liberal causes. I doubt very seriously you would have seen Abe Lincoln protesting for gay marriage rights, or abortion rights, or the many social causes modern Liberals take up.

Keep that in mind when you hear people like the US founding fathers being lumped in with one side or the other. Some may have been politically Liberal, others may have been politically and fiscally conservative but socially Liberal. I think you'll find in all most people like Manopeace don't really have a clue.
on Dec 10, 2005
The Conservatives on the other hand are basically a bunch of mindless idiots. They have no solid agenda so resort to name calling any chance they get. The moron that represents them as President today is held up on a pedestal, but it will fall one day. The wheels of progress cannot be stopped, they can get stuck on occassion, but they will eventually move forward.


Glad you didn't resort to a lot of conservative-esque name calling or anything here Manopeace. ;~D

Interesting that you accuse the conservatives of having "no solid agenda" but even after 2 presidential defeats, the liberals have yet to figure out that "anybody but Bush" isn't a "solid agenda" anymore than "we need to pull our troops out now" is a definition of success in Iraq.

Either way though, I took Cactoblasta's article in terms of "Liberal" and "Conservative" as presently represented in Australian vs. American politics... and how the same words don't often mean the same thing.

Of course, I could have missed the point completely. ;~D
on Dec 10, 2005
The difference is that Liberals are very secure with their beliefs. They work to make them reality. Sometimes they appear to be unpopular, but only because the media often presents them as a bunch of loonies. But in reality, they are the one that will bring about any positive changes in the States and anywhere else in the world.
The Conservatives on the other hand are basically a bunch of mindless idiots. They have no solid agenda so resort to name calling any chance they get. The moron that represents them as President today is held up on a pedestal, but it will fall one day. The wheels of progress cannot be stopped, they can get stuck on occassion, but they will eventually move forward.


And you say "we're" the ones that resort to name calling? Just what do you call what you did? Did you help elect this so called "moron"? If not please refrain from calling him that.
on Dec 10, 2005

I see you have a great debate going.  Ok, here is the difference in a nutshell (and I am glad you did not use republicans and democrats as this does not work for that distinction).

Conservatives believe in the greatness and responsibility of the average man.  Left to his own devices and skills, he can do anything.  And that is what they want man (and woman) to do.  Conservatives also beleive that government is self serving, and not serving of the people.  Government exists to perpetuate itself, not the good of the people.

Liberals beleive that man is inherantly selfish and cruel, so that government has to regulate their activity to achieve the same end.  All good flows from government, not from individuals.  So they advance government intervention at every perceived inequality.

IN a nutshell.

on Dec 10, 2005
But at the same stroke they often have very little respect for the maintenance of ancient institutions, or the maintenance of ancient standards or laws. In fact some times these conservatives even seek to have new laws put into place!
Perhaps it is because they are hypocritically unhappy with their religion as is and wish to evangelize greater changes. How is that different from relativism?
on Dec 10, 2005
Liberals beleive that man is inherantly selfish and cruel, so that government has to regulate their activity to achieve the same end. All good flows from government, not from individuals. So they advance government intervention at every perceived inequality.


Do you include the Vatican as well?
on Dec 10, 2005
Can you honestly say that all conservatives are mindless idiots? Can you say that all liberals are on the Harvard Law staff? No. It's crap.
Good for you!!

on Dec 11, 2005
If you want a perspective that isn't totally deranged, cacto, I would suggest checking the many online encyclopedia, and the many articles on Conservatism. I found several when I Googled. I don't think you'll get nearly as good a feel for it listening to the rantings of any of us.


Hey Baker, I would have thought you'd realised by now - I'm far more interested in a good opinion than fact. That's why I read this site anyway. It's like a smorgasboard, ranging from the truly bizarre to the mere strange. I sometimes think the only thing worth knowing about something is what others believe about it.

Conservatism is a diverse philosophy, with many flavors.


Yes, and the really interesting thing about it is that it can encompass anything from socialism (those crazy Fins) to communism (Bring back the USSR!) to neoliberalism (the US and Australia) to religious conservatism (Utah, Iran, various South American countries). The face of conservatism is determined entirely, as far as I can tell, from the social fabric of the country it's based in. It's a fascinatingly broad term, especially for political science, which seems to thrive on factional divisions (Trotskyite vs Marxist vs Leninist vs Stalinist vs 'neo' versions of all 4 anyone?).

The Conservatives on the other hand are basically a bunch of mindless idiots. They have no solid agenda so resort to name calling any chance they get.


Sorry manopeace but the irony! Oh the irony!

Marcie - I totally agree with you. Insightful for you! The labels seem utterly arbitrary from my point of view, and almost solely a way of identifying with people who wouldn't agree with you if you actually paused to have a discussion.

Either way though, I took Cactoblasta's article in terms of "Liberal" and "Conservative" as presently represented in Australian vs. American politics... and how the same words don't often mean the same thing.


Well you're right and wrong at the same time. I was writing about my experience, but I was hoping there was something in it you guys could see about how trivial I think the whole concept of distinctions like liberal/conservative is. My meandering rant was inspired by Draginol's article on the front page of Joeuser, but after considering writing something vitriolic in the comments section about how ridiculous his categorisation of his own side is (as he possesses all the hallmark traits of a political liberal), I wrote this instead. Maturity? I hope not...

Liberals beleive that man is inherantly selfish and cruel, so that government has to regulate their activity to achieve the same end. All good flows from government, not from individuals. So they advance government intervention at every perceived inequality.


We have very different ideas of a liberal. I see that now. By your definition I am not a liberal, and I doubt all but the most jaded are. I reckon people aren't inherently selfish and cruel, but they need a helping hand and the only one with a good track record is government (the 19th century and earlier - well, let's just say private charity didn't work too well). My sole socialist trait there - rather embarrassing really.

Of course, if you're using one of the classical approaches I'm probably somewhere between a welfare liberal and a loyal supporter of skill-based oligarchy. Brave new world ahoy!

Perhaps it is because they are hypocritically unhappy with their religion as is and wish to evangelize greater changes. How is that different from relativism?

Can't help you I'm afraid. I'm all for hypocrisy and I'd hate to see it go away forever. Life would be dull if people only did what they said they would do. And I don't know what you mean by relativism; it's one of those great words which have been molested so harshly it has practically no meaning left to protect its dignity.
on Dec 11, 2005
And you say "we're" the ones that resort to name calling? Just what do you call what you did? Did you help elect this so called "moron"? If not please refrain from calling him that.


DrMiler, as always I appreciate your contributions. But there's no longer any need to emphasise words here. I already know your voice (for lack of a better word) and of course the points at which you use quotation marks, stars or other characters to give a word a little extra force; please do my poor eyes a favour and refrain from such violent butchery of grammar. It's unnecessary and I won't stand for it. Cheers.

As for your point, I also thought Manopeace's message was interesting. More amusing than infuriating though. I understand Manopeace is from Israel, so he doesn't get an opportunity to vote. I do think though that he has a right to criticise foreign governments though. That's what being a foreigner is all about - sneering at the natives too stupid to rule themselves properly. I wouldn't dream of withdrawing such rights from him.
on Dec 11, 2005

And you say "we're" the ones that resort to name calling? Just what do you call what you did? Did you help elect this so called "moron"? If not please refrain from calling him that.


DrMiler, as always I appreciate your contributions. But there's no longer any need to emphasis words here. I already know your voice (for lack of a better word) and of course the points at which you use quotation marks, stars or other characters to give a word a little extra force; please do my poor eyes a favor and refrain from such violent butchery of grammar. It's unnecessary and I won't stand for it. Cheers.


Sorry cacto, but the emphasis was not meant for you. In all actuality that would not be considered butchering anything. The enclosing quotation marks are the accepted standard for emphasizing the typed word. The next accepted standard is to highlight the word in question. But I have not found a way to do that in JU. But all that aside. It is your blog and if it bugs you so much I will stop using it in your blog.

As far as mano's message goes....I personally did not find it amusing at all. He can talk all day about how bad he thinks GW is. But personally I believe he crossed the line with the name calling. Criticizing is different from name calling. I do not appreciate being called a mindless idiot. Nor do I appreciate him calling the duly elected leader of my country a moron. That's an opinion and quite frankly one I can do without. I would expect better from someone who once was an American.
on Dec 11, 2005
I would expect better from someone who once was an American.


As i expect better from the leader of the greatest country on earth.
2 Pages1 2