1  2  Next

i want to know what people's opinions are on the differences between liberals and conservatives...and try to limit the derogatory jokes and stupid pictures and insults. i'm being serious. i would like to know what you think the fundamental differences are, please. thanks

   

There isn't any they are all politicians.

   

The biggest differences are in:

Personal Responsibility. The farther to the left of the political spectrum you are the more likely you believe the government should be involved in regulating the issue at hand. Conversely, with each tick to the right there is a corresponding opposition to government intrusion.

Government. The left favours strong centralisation of government decision making and an influential public service while the Right is more partial to less restrictions and advocates localised policy.

Society. The left believes Canada does not live up to its potential and advocates constantly reevaluating or reengineering societal morals, ethics, traditions, customs and attitudes. Those on the right believe Canada is fine the way it is and are hesitant to trade what they are comfortable with and know works for conjecture.

   

Dbl Post.

   

From a con. in the US point of view

Grainfedpairieboy has it down pact on his first 2 points for how the cons vs libs work

His third part is a bit diff here.

Libs think the contry can be improved via social enginering and what not while Cons are more for doing ones best for the country and thus yourself.

Thats very simplified compared to how it is and how GFB wrote.

To me its Libs (dems) want to give everyone a hand out at the tax payers expense while Cons (rep.) want you to make it on your own with little gov. help.

   

If you meant Party wise, then sometimes the differences are vast, other times miniscule.

Trudeau Liberals were certainly Leftwing and had vast differences with Conservatives. Chretien Liberals were more to the centre and had few differences with Conservatives, though definitely some. Martin Liberals(kinda hard to add this part as he didn't have a lot of support within the Party) were Right of centre, but only slightly. Martin was, IMO, more Conservative than Mulroney, certainly more successful(prior to being PM) than Mulroney.

Mulroney was slightly Right of centre, but appeared far more Rightwing than he was due to Trudeaus Leftwing. After the split of the Conservatives, the Eastern Conservatives stuck with the PCs and were Right of centre as before. The Western Conservatives created Reform(then later Canadian Alliance) that were much more Rightwing than their Eastern counterparts. The re-integration of the East and West has once again brought the Conservatives back toward the centre.

In realistic terms, as Harper has been learning, it's very difficult to govern Federally from an Idealistic position. Conservative/Liberal is all a nice tidy package to accept/reject in Politics, but in real life neither works very well as a way to Govern. Partially due to shortcomings within them or any Idealism, but mostly because the Electorate doesn't really adhere to either Idealism and only deals with Issues and the various Solutions offered by Political Leaders.

That's not to say that Politicians should abandon their Idealistic stances, in fact that would be tragic. What I'm against though is for the Electorate to adopt Idealism. Idealism is good for coming up with Ideas, but it is poor for choosing solutions. Idealistic Political Parties in a system that allows Political Parties to come and go and contribute to the whole are healthy and gives Democracy life. Idealism amongst the Electorate and used as the basis for making Decisions is a poison though. It creates intellectually lazy Voters who succumb to Blind Partisanship and who go to great lengths to tolerate Corruption and Bad Decisions.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

   

It depends on whether you mean liberals vs. conservatives, or Liberals vs. Conservatives.

If it's the latter, the answer is easy: Not much. As sandorski said, it's impossible to govern with a strict ideology. If you take a stance an any particular issue, your opposition can win more votes by taking a position slightly more/less polarizing. It's a race to the "middle" on all issues. This isn't necessarily bad.

Now, liberalism vs. conservatism, that could be fun.

   

there are alot of differences between the two and i could see this topic/ thread going on for a longtime. since everyone would have there own opinon on the differences.

   

i think there are very few political alignment differences between any party that is able to hold a majority government in Canada. When the harper goverment comes into a majority, it wont be the right wing party the they have been, it'll be a close to centre as the liberals used to be. Now the liberals are way off to the left.

   

To be entirely honest with you, GB, I disagree wholeheartedly. Some of the most stringently right-wing governments in History (Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia -- yes, Stalin's Russia) regulated and controlled virtually everything it could get its grubby little hands on. Hitler's corporatist economic agenda shares a common modus operandi with Stalin's centralized control of production.

The fact is that opposition to government regulation is found closer to the centre of the political spectrum, as percieved (though it rarely adeduately applies to any given situation), in the realm of classical liberalism.

It is in this sense that the alleged ideological conflict between contemporary liberalism and contemporary conservatism (very different from classical conservatism) represents little more than an internecine conflict between people who are essentially centrists.

The fact is that the modern era of politics -- the one in which we live in now -- is largely a demotic political era. Most political parties and actors espouse essentially the same greater vision, and merely quibble over the means by which we will reach that vision.

Really, how different are the Conservative, Liberal and NDP policy platforms? Not much, really.



This does seem to be the nature of the disagreement over the means by which we will reach that aforementioned shared vision. Contemporary liberals and contemporary conservatives do argue over the extent to which the state should act on behalf of its citizens.

Yet, there are extents to which no comtemporary liberal would argue that the state should exert control, or action: no contemporary liberal would suggest that we should give the government absolute control over the rearing of children, or abolish government in favor of any sort of dictatorial regime. To do this would force them out of the realm of classical liberalism and into that fascist/communist realm of autocracy: classical conservatism.



Yet, many individuals on the right also advocate for the outlawing of same sex marriage, and restricting immigration. Using governmental and societal resources to socially engineer society to their liking is hardly the exclusive domain of the left.

   

liberal/conservative ideologies are difficult to compare because they are not based on any simple political concept - as Patrick mentioned, each has their own components of authoritarian/libertarian ideologies. The interchange during discussions between the two spectrums (liberal/conservative and authoritarian/libertarian) is common, but not warranted.

I would never choose define my views on a conservative/liberal spectrum because it's meaningless to me.

   

It's meaningless to a lot of people.

To some others, however, any conceptualization of a political spectrum that allows for expressions of any kind of broad diversity is very threatening. They prefer polarized environments because it makes it easier for them to push their agenda: "you're either liberal or conservative"; "you're either left or right", "you're either with me or against me".

Anyone caught in the middle gets rode roughshod over, and essentially squeezed out. Those who unkowignly push an idea of dichotomy do so because they literally believe in it. Those who knowingly do so do it because they understand that anyone whose opinion is even slightly different from theirs is someone who can interfere in the implimentation of their agenda.

The former are fairly ordinary people, and mostly harmless. I view the latter as very dangerous and sinister, because they know precisely what they are trying to accomplish, and they aren't afraid to lie, cheat -- or maybe even kill -- to do it.

   

Not just harmless, I think it's essential to have that opposition. I doubt that's a novel concept.

I moreso disagree with the way in which the two sides are divided, rather than that they're divided. I don't believe having a moderate standpoint is a virtue necessarily. I just think opinions would be more easily justified if handled in a libertarian/authoritarian manner, rather than this seemingly arbitrary right/left manner.

   

I actually disagree that we're divided by much of anything other than our own vanity.

If you read off the end result sought by the NDP (which I would describe as a healthy, prosperous, well-educated society with a clean environment and no poverty) for example, without divulging which party's platform you're discussing, it should sound pretty good to the average Conservative party supporter. It's once you get into methodology and partisan affiliations that the greatest conflict emerges.

Frankly, I think that if we convince ourselves that there is any colossal difference between the ultimate goals of the Liberal, Conservative or New Democratic parties, we're decieving ourselves.

I think the most extreme partisans have too great a love of power, and no distinctive vision of their own.

   

I don't doubt that the intentions are the same - the effectiveness of each ideology is the question, which isn't necessarily equal.

   

1  2  Next