The true meaning of these simple words
Published on November 1, 2006 By Martimus In Politics
I am tired of reading blanket statements on this site about liberals. As I am sure other sites have blanket statements about conservatives that are totally off base, so are these. When I read these political posts, I always get this feeling that the writer doesn't truly understand what the words Conservative and Liberal really mean. Rush Limbaugh is not Conservative, he is republican. He may believe that the federal government should be more conservative than it is in certain areas, but he also believes that is should be more liberal in other areas. I will explain in a minute, but first I want to define the terms conservative and liberal for everyone as it pertains to a governing body.

A consevative goverment is simply one that does as little as possible. The most conservative a government could be would be a government that does not exist - or simply anarchy. Most conservative thinking people want fewer services done by the government. However this includes things such as police and a standing military. A truly conservative stance on the government would be to cut even the standing military and police, and really everything controlled by that governing body. The original US government with no standing army, and only a state run militia was truly conservative when it came to its military.

A liberal government is one that does as much as possible. The most liberal a government could be would be to have everything run and controlled by the government, where everyone that is being governed is also being part of the governing body - or a true commune. Most liberal thinking people would like more services from the government. They would like a governing body to take care of certain tasks for them, such as fire are police services. A truly liberal stance on a standing military would be to increase the federal military. War is really only possible through the use of a liberal government.

Now Republican values are somewhat conservative when it comes to individual services, but liberal when it comes to federal control and power. They preach fewer services but more executive power, so they are neither conservative nor liberal. Democatic values are somewhat liberal when it comes to individual services, but conservative when it comes to federal control and power. They want more services but less executive power, so they are also neither conservative nor liberal.

I would like some extra services from the federal goverment in some areas, and less services in other areas. I would like a nationalized healthcare system, where everyone has the option to get medical care paid for by the community (all of us). I would like to get rid of individual wellfare programs and social security, where peole are paid cash by the community for various reasons. I don't mind the way the military is set up now. We have a much larger military budget than the rest of the world combined. I don't see a reason to increase it except that we are at war - we are keeping everything together with smoke and mirrors right now because we haven't increased the military budget since the war began. If we were not at war, I don't feel like we would need to change the military budget.

I know that I didn't go into much detail on any of the things I wrote, but I think that I gave sufficient detail to give a glimpse into how I feel the US federal governement should be run.

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 03, 2006
Well, there are other terms, though, right? People can be moderate. People can be social liberals and fiscal conservatives. I don't think the problem really is in the labels as much as it is in the way they are applied roughshod.

It's really not that bad a thing anyway. When Rush Limbaugh brands someone a Liberal, he's only minimizing them to people who don't like Liberals. To someone who identifies themselves as Liberal it wouldn't be an insult, would it? It only really has power to hurt you if you have a problem with being called Liberal.

To me, the problem is people LISTEN to people like that at all. They don't define these words, they just abuse them. This is the way we've labeled, happily, philosophies for generations; does it need to be rethought because of how a few pundits have abused the words for a few years?

Very little water and a whole lot of baby if you ask me. The words still fit the philosophy, they just don't fit the stigma that you've allowed people like Rush to taint them with.
2 Pages1 2