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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
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.


Since you no longer live in America nor vote in her elections you no longer have that luxury. You can expect all you want. Doesn't mean you're going to get it. Nor are you entitled to it. You want to disagree with GW's policies that's fine. But the name calling is over the top and unnecessary. Most especially when you start calling me a moron.
on Dec 11, 2005
Do you include the Vatican as well?


At some times? Yes, but not today.
on Dec 11, 2005
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.


Yes we do, and very different experiences. For here in the states, the government has not done that. Instead it has enslaved a large number of people. And that is what true conservatives rail about. So in one aspect, as it applies to American politics, you are conservative. And in the other, the only reason you are liberal is due to the difference in experiences.

Still, this is a great forum! Thanks for starting it.
on Dec 11, 2005
Most especially when you start calling me a moron.


I do not recall ever calling you a moron. Your President yes, you, I think not.
on Dec 11, 2005
Most especially when you start calling me a moron.


I do not recall ever calling you a moron. Your President yes, you, I think not


Oh, I'm sorry. No you didn't call me a moron. "You" called me a mindless idiot.


The Conservatives on the other hand are basically a bunch of mindless idiots


And I do NOT appreciate you calling the duly elected leader of MY country a "moron".
on Dec 11, 2005
Don't bother, Doc. Challenged mano about that assertion above and he ignored it.
on Dec 11, 2005
I think you'll find in all most people like Manopeace don't really have a clue.


People that do not have a clue do not accept challenges Baker... sorry.
on Dec 12, 2005
Enough! No more of this trivial name-calling! For the love of [insert deity of your choice]!

How about this - you're both wrong. About something. Now let's move on.

I do not appreciate being called a mindless idiot. Nor do I appreciate him calling the duly elected leader of my country a moron.

Hey, you should be flattered - at least he thinks one way or the other about you. The only thing worse than being insulted is not being worth insulting, to rephrase Wilde.

Yes we do, and very different experiences. For here in the states, the government has not done that. Instead it has enslaved a large number of people. And that is what true conservatives rail about. So in one aspect, as it applies to American politics, you are conservative. And in the other, the only reason you are liberal is due to the difference in experiences.


I don't know about enslaved - saying that sort of thing gets you dangerously close to the whole "G8 is tha devil!!!" school of thought. You know, fight the global power and all that. Perhaps oppressed and disadvantaged. I can't say I'm a fan of the great gap between rich and poor in the US, or the fact it's widening, even if it does apparently encourage innovation.

Better you than me in my opinion, but that's hardly a constructive thought.
on Dec 12, 2005
Conservatism is not really an ideology. It's merely the will to preserve traditional values, and depending on these values, conservatism can be any ideology.

Often conservatism attempts to preserve only a sub-set of a set of traditional values, usually what is considered the good or acceptable parts. Many conservatives actively support these values, but others merely want to preserve a system that has worked well enough and have no real opinion about whether there could be better values.

When the word "conservative" is used in this context here, it usually refers to American or British conservatism. The 19th century seems to be the value base and a few of the 19th century values that conservatives want to preserve or get back include

free market capitalism

traditional family roles (with the new proviso that this should be done by choice)

colour-blind society and no slavery (a British Empire trait)

support for monarchism (among British conservatives)

support for republicanism (among American conservatives)

support for democracy (both)

no anti-semitism but friendship with the Jewish people (again from Britain)

against affirmative action as a strategic rather than tactical policy (colour-blindness)

support for Christianity, Judaism, and "royal Islam" (the Islam of the Arab kings as opposed to the Islam of the mullahs)

against communism

more so against fascism (fascism is a new set of values)

for patriotism, against nationalism

roots in Anglo-Saxon culture and the English language

against abortion when in doubt

against re-defining "marriage"

support for strong military and strategic (rather than tactical) use of it


Neo-conservatism grew in the 1980s and is symbolised by Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the US. It modifies conservatism as above:

allows for some social security

supports tactical use of strong military as well

might support abortion

often does not care about definition of "marriage"

supports more active support for Israel


There is a third branch of conservatism, often referred to as palaeo-conservatives. Palaeo-conservatism chooses different values from the 19th century set and is thus distinct from the other major branches.


Neo-conservatism is a mixture between conservatism and upset liberals and socialists, hence the support for some social security and the exaggeration of certain conservative traits (namely those which the liberals and socialists found to be lacking in liberalism and socialism).

Conservatism in this sense in inherently tolerant of other faiths and cultures but does believe, and strongly so, in the superiority of the English-language Judaeo-Christian culture over other cultures. There is no belief in the superiority or even politically or socially relevant difference between races or skin colours. ANYBODY can wear a tie and speak English and conservatives will happily acknowledge him as one of their own. (Adapt clothing for female representation when required.)

Affirmative action is opposed on the grounds that the perceived difference it is based on is not perceived by conservatism.

Monarchism is supported because of a strong belief in a stable government and consistent value system (compare republicanism and the constitution in the US).

Patriotism is seen as support for one's country rather than one's nation (which is often defined as common ancestry). The common culture and values are seen as more important than a common ancestry or common skin colour.


"Liberalism" is a similar umbrella term probably defined as "anything but conservative", analogous to the original liberalism which was the opposite of some previous conservatism (that of Sir Robert Filmer, in any case).

The original liberalism is a super-set of a sub-set of the values practices in the British Empire and to some extent the United States after the civil war in the 19th century.

Today's liberalism is strongly rooted in a belief that cultures are all of the same value and that differences between races exist but shouldn't be acknowledged.
on Dec 12, 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.


Thanks to you, I now have egg on my face. In an earlier post I stated that name calling tit for tat personalization's aimed at folks with differing opinions didn't appear common at JU. Course that's coming from a newbe that hasn't read all the posts...now I don't have to.

No matter where one travels on the Internet hoping for lucid, logical even idealistic discussions with differing folks, there's always someone with ulterior motives and lower expectations.
on Dec 12, 2005
Thanks to you, I now have egg on my face. In an earlier post I stated that name calling tit for tat personalization's aimed at folks with differing opinions didn't appear common at JU.


Then you really should have read all the posts first. You'd be amazed. And guess what, it's not always a left-winger. It's just as often been a right-winger.

I just thought you should know....didn't want you to get the usual wrong idea.
on Dec 13, 2005

I don't know about enslaved - saying that sort of thing gets you dangerously close to the whole "G8 is tha devil!!!" school of thought. You know, fight the global power and all that. Perhaps oppressed and disadvantaged. I can't say I'm a fan of the great gap between rich and poor in the US, or the fact it's widening, even if it does apparently encourage innovation

First, you are correct.  Enslaved is a bit too harsh.  But it is not really opressed.  More like being killed with feigned kindness. 

As for the gap, it actually is just a myth of the media.  Bill gates did not start out as a multi-billionaire (and neither did Brad start out as a multi-millionaire).  The supposed Gap is just a conduit where people rise and some slide back.  If you look at Bill Gates and compare him to the poorest, yes the gap has widened.  Only because you cant go below 0, and there is no limit on the upper end.  But as a whole, the income of the people is very fluid.  With most of the supposed poor, actually being just the young starting out.  And while you hear horror stories of the elderly that must eat dog food, they are exceptions, not the rule.

2 Pages1 2