Taking a stab at definitions for the words: conservative, liberal, statist, centrist, and libertarian. by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
I received an interesting question today from two separate readers, one I've never previously received via email since the site's founding. Doubtless, numerous columnists have raised the question in their own articles on the site, but this is the first time I've received directed inquiries on the subject. Both readers wanted to know what the definitions of the words liberal, conservative, centrist, libertarian, and statist are. Here's what I wrote back to both of them.
Hmm...good question. I don't have a page that describes each category in the sense that you mean. My intention with the site was and is to use the categories to organize the articles, so that by studying the articles in each category, each reader can gain a sense of what each category means by his/her own judgment and evaluation.
I'm the one who originally wrote the survey on the site. When I wrote it, my intention was to identify the current state of each of those terms in society today: libertarian, conservative, liberal, statist, and centrist. In that sense, I wasn't trying to define the terms so much as I was trying to identify how they're used and how people self-identify.
Glenn Beck replaced the word "statist" with "progressive" in his discussion of the survey on his TV program last Friday. It's an interesting choice. While I'm not opposed to it, I think it's also pretty clearly true that many liberals consider themselves to be progressive in a "good" way, just as many conservatives consider themselves to be libertarian in a "good" way.
From my viewpoint, I see two ongoing struggles.
First is the struggle for "true conservatism". Ron Paul-type supporters typically call themselves "true conservatives" by which they really mean mainly libertarian. Yet, they cringe at being called libertarian. Similarly, the Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney supporters see themselves as the "true conservatives", which also makes the Ron Paul conservatives cringe. The Palin/Cheney camp is often referred to as neo-conservative (meaning "new" conservative) by libertarian-leaners, yet many Palin/Cheney supporters consider the term neo-conservative to be disparaging. I find that reaction intriguing, since neo only means new. To me, the reaction reflects the fact that lots of people have found fault with the idea that big "defense" (really offense) for the U.S. military is counterproductive to the ideals of liberty, and the "new" conservatives bristle at the same suggestion.
Second is the struggle for "true liberalism". America elected a liberal-leaning centrist as president last year. Look at the struggle within the liberal wing. Just like the conservative side, the liberal side is torn between "true liberalism" which is often called "progressive", and "pragmatic liberalism" which is more centrist. When the health care measure including the "public option" didn't clear Congress and was derailed by the loss of Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, strongly liberal people threatened to do to Democrats what libertarians are threatening to do to Republicans: withdraw their support.
It's as if the struggle on the chart is between the upper-right area and the lower-left area.
Yet, even that differentiation doesn't explain everything going on. From my point-of-view, the entire chart is about the struggle for liberty vs tyranny. That's the brilliance of David Nolan's invention, as Beck pointed out on his program the other day.
So getting back to the question: I don't have the final answer for it. The best I can do is tell you my view of what each word means. Each is a somewhat extreme description, because it's necessary to differentiate as clearly as we possibly can. My definitions would probably be challenged by a lot of different people, because ultimately there is no agreement as to what any of the terms mean. That's fine; it's one reason why we have debates.
libertarian: supports the smallest possible government, supports individual liberty in all ways, prefers to only defend our borders and not interfere in other countries' affairs.
conservative: tends to give a nod and a wink to liberty while placing emphasis on government control of "family" issues (gay marriage, abortion, borders, etc.) while pushing for major military involvement worldwide by America, in the hopes of creating a faith-based, "conservative" world.
liberal: tends to give a nod and a wink to liberty while placing emphasis on government control of "social issues" (social safety net, minority rights, etc.) while pushing for major diplomatic involvement worldwide by America backed by somewhat lesser military involvement, in the hopes of creating an inclusive, "liberal" world.
statist: the marriage of liberal and conservative aspects of big government. Supports both the conservative "family" agenda and the liberal "social" agenda. Supports both major diplomatic and military involvement abroad.
centrist: somewhere in the middle of all of the above.
They're not an ideal set of definitions, perhaps, but I think they're useful working definitions. I hope you find them helpful.
Update, March 11, 2010: I've set up a new forum for people to make constructive suggestions to improve the survey's questions and answers. Interested persons should visit forum.nolanchart.com to participate in the effort.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The only two categories that really mean anything are statist and libertarian, with liberal being a synonym of libertarian.
Liberalism and libertarianism are from the Latin "libertas", of freedom, and both mean a belief in the importance of individual liberty. This definition of liberalism is presently attributed to classical liberalism, to make liberalism available for hijacking by the definition you use in your article.
Conservatism is from the Latin "conservare", to preserve, and the term is uninformative without a description of what is to be preserved. A conservative at the time of America's founding may have been a British monarchist.
A liberal, a libertarian, and a Declaration of Independence-conservative are basically the same thing, so there is really one axis of importance on the Nolan Chart. This axis has freedom at one end and slavery at the other.
Thanks Walt, sage commentary, as always. I consider myself a 'Ron Paul Libertarian', meaning that I subscribe to the '5 points of no compromise' as outlined by Libertarian party founder David Nolan here:
Putting it another way, the debate over where one is defined in the political spectrum is most simply defined by how much power and influence one is inclined to assign to government in out lives. Libertarians advocate for a republican form of government, representing the least government interference possible without falling into the void of anarchy, whereas those who advocate oligarchy would defer to government wherever and whenever government saw fit to intervene. Historically speaking, there is no other form of stable government.
Although your intentions have always been to promote liberty and libertarian principles I thought that you originally wanted to get more writers from the other sides of the chart to comment here. But if you refer to Liberalism and Conservativism as they tend to do "lip-service" for liberty, a definition that I do agree with, how are you going to be able to attract more writers from those other corners of the chart? Aren’t the Liberals, Conservatives, Statists, and Centrists going to be discouraged from writing because they think that most of the readers are just a bunch of “libertarian nut-jobs”?
Readers might be interested in a variation of the Nolan Chart composed by Cliff Thies and me for the "Liberty Index" ratings. The overview describes several additional political labels:
http://tinyurl.com/yddmcfh
One defect in the Beck and Napolitano commentary was labeling the axis as "degrees of freedom", which is incorrect and makes the "top" position anarchist. Liberty is the freedom (or at least the social effort to protect individuals) from criminal or governmental coercion, not the freedom to do anything you please.
Dale Husband provides some commentary on the LiberGraph at this site. He considers it a "superior" version in several respects:
Posted By: Richard Jones
Date: 2010-03-03 14:05:11
It is vital that we all know what we believe and so I found the test helpful however I just can't see the libertarian party winning a large enough majority to defect the kind of dramatic changes this country so desperately needs. I am deeply saddened at the realization that my sons will inherit a communist / socialist country. the level of oppression that brings we can't imagine because we have only experienced freedom (though limited now) generations past would cringe at our level of "freedom". Were we fall in this test is less important then what we leave our children. I wish that even our socialist congress and house would be less concerned with keeping power then leaving freedom intact for the next hundred years. Though it is painfully clear freedom is last on their list.
I really do not know where I fall in the above categories. I tend to be a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I believe in open minds. I believe abortion, marriage and prayer in school are family, community and church issues and have no place in government. I have begun to believe in regulating business because of the incredible rise of greed and lack of business ethics on Wall St. I believe our military should be used for defense and that we have spent far too much time, effort, lives and dollars in other countries. I also believe labels tend to limit us.
One of the the problems that we citizens face in dealing with the multitude of issues on display in our country, is either the lack of basic knowledge or intentional personal deceit.
Comparing those of our time with where they fit politically with those that lived in time past, is tenuous at best. Projecting that a conservative of this era, would be a British Monarchist. Is a feeble and childish misintrepetation of the use of the vocabulary of our time and the language, and its intented purpose. The meaning of words.
By controlling the words and the meaning, you control the masses.
Peoples change, culture change. Words and their meaning change.
Humans do not. Some are generally good and honest. Others generally bad, and dishonest. Those with dishonorable intent, intentionally misuse the current accepted meaning for their own benefit.
Many consevatives are for change. While many liberals resist change. Some conservatives are for freedom of speech. Some liberals are against the free exchange of opinions. Using a standard dictionary's description to place those of a liberal / conservative bent in box, is sophomoric and malevolent.
I believe that David Nolan's attempt at cutting through the haze and misunderstanding of what people actually believe, and where they actually fit within those imaginary classifications of human convictions, is a noble endeavour. While not perfect, a much more accurate description of political thought, than the imperfectly used dictionary description as used.
Posted By: jeffrey a ballard
Date: 2010-03-04 12:17:40
I don't think I am as knowledgeable as most who have responed here.I always thought I was a republican(conservative).I now think I realize there is so much more than just republicans and democrats which I thought were (liberals). I took the test several times just to test the results.I then took it and really put myself to the test and found I am in fact a conservative but tend to move toward libertarian views somewhat. I guess i'm a conservatarian haha maybe not so funny.I believe most people don't really know what they are ,and there in lies the problem being, people will conform to the most prevalent political lifestyle spoon fed by the victor. I know in my heart though that each individual will know what is right and what is wrong and in the end only those who stand up for what they believe will win . The majority will stand together and once more a republic will rise out of the ashes.My sons will be a part of this, that I know.
For 58 years now i have lived what i concidered a "normal" life. My one real problem was with my continuous disgust with GOVERNMENT. Local, state, and federal had daily proven to be more intrusive, expensive, and no real value to myself. The harder i worked, the more intelegently i invested, the more government took. In rebellion to the political thinking of the late 60's and early 70's, i thought of myself as a neo-anarchist. In the 1890-1900's "anarchists" were "bomb throwing", "destroy everything" charactures of yellow journalism.
I had never heard of Nolan, never really understood where the term "libertarian" originated. According to the test i sit at the point of the "libertarian" diamond.
So i only expect the worst from DC. I see no alternative available.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2010-03-06 08:38:32
I've set up a forum at forum.nolanchart.com for our readers and columnists to make constructive suggestions regarding how to modify the survey's questions and answers in order to make it better. Please feel free to login and participate.
Posted By: Scott Drummond
Date: 2010-03-07 09:09:06
I learned of this chart from Beck's show, like MANY others. I was surprised to learn from the quiz results that the Nolan chart rates me right at the tip of the libertarian portion. I had assumed that I was a conservative libertarian. This could account for some serious arguments that I've had with other conservatives & so-called Republicans on certain issues. Insofar as modern democrats are concerned,I believe they are & have been part of if not most of the problem with what's wrong with our country!!! Thanks so much & I agree with Glenn Beck that ALL Americans NEED to learn the real HISTORY of our wonderful nation, & use that as a guideline to help us recover our nation, before it is completely destroyed by the statists, who I believe ARE NOT representative of most Americans. Scott Drummond Duluth,GA
My result landed way off on the outskirts of Libertarian in the Nolan Chart. Surprise! I always thought I was a conservative. But going by the definitions, "libertarian" is a perfect fit. As my Grandfather, a rancher, said, "The government that governs least, governs best!"
What would be interesting is to survey age ranges, to see how the generations are trending. I'm old school individualist in my mid 60s. Bet the new generations are trending toward centrist.
Thanks for an interesting web site!
For years I considered myself to be a conservative. I do not profess any party, Democrat or Republican. One consideration I make when voting is how similiar or close my values are to the person running for office. How much I agree or disagree, listening very closely to critical answers, but mainly what is NOT being said more so than to what is being SAID. The test placed me as a libertarian with a star placed close to the conservative side. What does this mean? My thinking has always been opposit of my family which makes me "different". I'm okay with different because I make decisions based on my own findings and not to easily influenced by my family or others. "If we are not the beneficiaries of our fruits and labor we will always be slaves"...Fredrick Douglas.
The test placed me smack on the upper-right line of libertarianism near conservative.
In actuality although I am a libertarian, I should be placed on the upper-left line near liberal (i believe in a social safety-net for the disabled and elderly; however i believe in completely stopping all adventures and aid overseas).
Thanks for your definitions in this article: I think they are very good!
Found myself often struggling between the libertarian and conservative answer to each question. Many of the conservative answers were too stereotypical. For example, I may think that gay marriage should not be approved based on factors that go beyond strictures in the Bible. Also, to be more effective, the language of your questions and answers should not show libertarian disdain for other points of view.
I landed at the very top of the libertarian section. I would have been surprised if it was anywhere else. Support Ron Paul! It's disgusting how Republicans never mention his name when asked who would be good for the country in the party. They shut him out which shows they want govt. control also for their agendas. I want people to have their own beliefs even if they disagree with me. But as soon as you promote the govt. putting a gun to my head to agree with you, then we have a problem! I urge people to read Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" speech. The entire speech. If it doesn't emotionally move you, then may you live somewhere else in the bowls of tyranny! I am one of the New Sons of Liberty!
Posted By: Ron Benvenutti
Date: 2010-03-12 21:33:21
Thank you David Nolan, and all those who contributed to the current form of the Nolan Chart. This is a much needed method of getting beyond the limitations of narrow political labels that all too often mask the complex mix of issues under discussion today.
Though I thought myself a solid Conservative, seeing my views landing at the tip of the Libertarian wedge requires me to re-consider my future efforts in seeking out more like-minded people, and should help me focus discussions on the issues most important to me.
Having just retired this month and keenly interested in better understanding the issues and motivations of all the Political movements, I look forward to participating in the forum mentioned by Walt Thiessen - forum.nolanchart.com - as I learn more about the background of this effort.
It seems to be a common thread, having read the above comments, to be surprised to find oneself not in the conservative area at all, but towards the tip of the libertarian. I had the same surprising thing happen to me.
But at the same time, I am not shocked. I have recently become quite upset with the Republican (conservative) party, nearly as much as I have been regarding the Democrat (liberal) party; it has become perfectly clear to me that the taste of power has corrupted both, just as it did in George Orwell's Animal Farm. I believe in an emptying out of all those tainted, and bringing in "new blood". This will only be a temporary fix; once the new becomes touched by power, it, too, will crave more. But I hope that the next generations will be equipped and ready to recognize the beginning signs, and nip the problem in the bud, before it escalates to the magnitude we are dealing with today.
A few years earlier, I might have been all for banning any immorality (such as homosexuality) discussed in the Bible, being one of those "Jesus freaks"; since then I have fully realized that such action by the government is an infringement on the individual's liberty to choose their own stupidity. So long as their stupidity does not abuse any other person's God-given rights, they should not be hindered by the government. However, I still hold that we as a nation must return to our foundation upon God, so that, while untouchable by government, the immoral acts (which in most cases, are not merely immoral but harmful as well) spoken of in the Bible are shunned by our culture. But I understand this will not happen overnight, just as recovering from an alcohol, drug, porn, or other addiction takes time and, unquestionably, stumbling along the way. I also understand that this can only be a God thing.
This is perhaps my only noteworthy difference from being a "true" libertarian.
An interesting survey and I agree generally about the category examples. But where does a 'strong military, constitutionalist, traditionalist' most aptly reside?
Yoikes, thank you for understanding the actual definitions of the political terms. I find it funny that in mainstream political discourse, we've had to start using the word "libertarian" because we don't understand the true definition of "liberal," which of course, is what the mainstream media and political discourse has confused with a seperate concept: socialism.
I know that it may be splitting hairs over semantics, but it would be like people talking about psychology to start calling Freud a behaviorist, Bandura a psycho-analysis, and Maslow a gestaltist.
For years people have told me I sound more libertarian than conservative. I was always uneasy or slightly insulted by this but never knew why. Since the resurgence of the right, I've been exposed to more libertarian thought and I've begun to understand. Quoting the article above; "conservatives tend to give lip-service to liberty while placing emphasis on government control of "family" issues (gay marriage, abortion.."; well this is an arrogant position, and ultimately intrudes on the rights of others (is anti-libertarian). The sole legitimate role of government is to monopolize violence or to maintain public order. This includes the prevention and punishment of infanticide. If most Americans consider abortion the biological and ethical equivalent of infanticide, as was the case for much of our history and perhaps will be again, who are libertarians to tell them they cannot enact laws reflecting this? Only an oligarchy or dictatorship would feel justified and have the power to swoop in and tell such a city or state they’ve enacted non-libertarian-approved government control. Classical liberals, conservatives and libertarians all champion individual liberty. The premise of the definition is only libertarians decide whether a law protects or erodes it.
The issue of marriage perfectly illustrates the authoritarian streak of “libertarians”. As a public institution, only citizens acting in concert through government can define marriage. A libertarian feels equipped to tell them they must define it to include homosexuals. A classical liberal says the people can ultimately choose whatever definition they want (through the procedural mechanisms of a constitutional republic.) A true libertarian, one who wishes to maximize individual freedom, must not only allow citizens to define their sexuality etc, they must also allow them to collectively define their public policy. Given enough time and political skill, people must be free to choose ANYTHING for themselves, including slavery, abortion, socialism etc. The beauty of our constitution is that the separation of powers and limited role of the federal government increases the likelihood that we will continue (or in most areas return) to a maximization of individual liberty.
You can use all the big words you like. The fact is the words really don\'t matter they\'re not ideas or beliefs they\'re WORDS. This test basically just measures the degree of the goverenments role in different aspects of society each person is comfortable with. While I belive like Thomas Paine that government is a necessary evil, others belive that government is a good way to regulate and keep peace in society. To those people I would like to respectfully ask you why do your senators, congressmen etc. NEED so much money and power. To me the answer is obvious..... more money and more power and we all know what absolute power does.
Conservative and liberal are not parties in the United States. They're terms to describe your policies on progression. What you describe as conservative is the Republican party, liberal the Democractic party. You can be a conservative Democratic or a liberal Republican. You need to open a dictionary before you start defining definitions.
Conservative(adj.): disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Conservative(noun): a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
Liberal(adj.): favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
Liberal(noun): a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-08 16:06:26
The only two categories that really mean anything are statist and libertarian, with liberal being a synonym of libertarian.
Liberalism and libertarianism are from the Latin "libertas", ...
Unfortunately, 'yoikes', pedantic linguistics doesn't much help in political philosophy. It's like checking what you leave in the toilet bowl to construct a tasty dinner. Both may be individually useful in their own way, but the connection between them has long been rendered meaningless.
"Mortgage" is derived of the latin word for death, as well; reading too much into that doesn't serve much of a current purpose beyond sub-prime conspiracy theories.
libertarian: supports the smallest possible government, supports individual liberty in all ways, prefers to only defend our borders and not interfere in other countries' affairs.
Incorrect. Libertarians support a government that follows the rules of "liberty" by which that government was established. It may be the "smallest government possible", but only if the written rules for the establishment of government sufficiently constrain it.
Individual liberties, as well, are only libertarianly supportable to the degree they are defined. Supporting "individual liberty" "in all ways" can be construed - very easily, by the way - to support anarchy; "I am at liberty to murder anyone I dislike because I am a libertarian..." and other facile charges.
Because of the hyperbolic overstatement of this false "principle", mainstream partisan hacks do not discern a difference between libertarianism and anarchy. This is a distinction that is important to make.
And foreign policy ... once again, the only thing that real libertarianism supports is adhering to the definition and scope of the government as it was defined to be; that definition mentions very little about foreign policy, and it certainly doesn't compel a virtually isolationist position or, as some would have it, a pacifist position. A bossy and intrusive foreign policy is not incompatible with the definition of our government; the libertarian would simply assert that IF the nation were to wish for itself such a bossy foreign policy, then We The People need to fork over the cash to pay for it.
conservative: tends to give a nod and a wink to liberty while placing emphasis on government control of "family" issues (gay marriage, abortion, borders, etc.) while pushing for major military involvement worldwide by America, in the hopes of creating a faith-based, "conservative" world.
Superficial description. You're good with the "wink and nod" thing, but defining the specific issues by which this quadrant of the chart is only a temporary aspect. They will change over time. As will the implied religiosity, and the foreign buttinskying.
There's not a lot you can do about this for purposes of current definition, however. "Conservatism" is a slowly moving target.
And in point of fact, as Jessica alluded, "conservatism" today is where most of the "change for change's sake" is coming from; today's liberals are all attempting to ossify policies enacted in the last two generations - which is as conservative a philosophy as you can get.
liberal: tends to give a nod and a wink to liberty while placing emphasis on government control of "social issues" (social safety net, minority rights, etc.) while pushing for major diplomatic involvement worldwide by America backed by somewhat lesser military involvement, in the hopes of creating an inclusive, "liberal" world.
Superficial for the same reason "conservative" is. It's a moving target, and it's only their current incarnation that casts them as the group-hug ninnies they are. A few generations ago they were relatively more militaristic.
statist: the marriage of liberal and conservative aspects of big government. Supports both the conservative "family" agenda and the liberal "social" agenda. Supports both major diplomatic and military involvement abroad.
First sentence good; second not so much. A statist would support the primacy of the state, for whatever reason, for its own sake.
Most statists I've run across are either liberal statists or conservative in defining why the state needs/warrants the power they wish to give it, but they both parrot the nonsensical notion that "the sum of the wisdom of the leaders is greater than the individual" ... which is as stupid as claiming that the height of a mountain range is determined by piling all the mountains on top of each other.
The "state" is only as wise as its wisest person - if it obeys him. If it doesn't, it is no wiser than its most foolish.
So, Ross, a "think tank" is only as smart as the smartest member of that think tank?
I was very busy thinking "weird, wobbly, and huh?" to most of your post/definitions... but that last line really takes the cake on wrongness. Did NASA use decisions ONLY from the smartest person in NASA... to determine the causes of the shuttle accidents? No. They used fault tree software and collected (and weighed) the views of many... and that database (a "commune" of knowledge) became more knowledge-filled than any single individual, and by a long shot.
I take it that your version of "state" contains no "of the people", eh? You look at "state" and "government" as a "them" in some US vs THEM war, do you? It sure seems that way.
Do you think that capitalism/economies allow freedom even while it makes US follow some man-made-up rules called ownership laws, and forces 18 year olds to JOIN CAPITALISM OR STARVE? Does the USA allow folks to use ANY currency and not JUST AmWay pyramid scheme coupons (see pyramid scheme symbol on back of USA dollar)? No. Any freedom seen there? When home owners are presented with "pay up OR ELSE" just like shop owners had to deal with from the mob in old Chicago prior to Elliot Ness... is that freedom?
As someone mentioned far above... WHICH freedom? Freedom to let yourself be controlled by laws and policies/police? Freedom FROM laws and policies/police? Freedom from having to honor ownership? Freedom to HAVE private ownership and police guns backing it? Freedom to join the Amish and still get the life enjoyments and opportunities of a power capitalist... as in... their freedom to NEVER get a job because grandpa squatted tons of land and resources back when the Earth wasn't completely owned and controlled via ownership? Or how about freedom of children from the mores, addictions, and anger of their parents? No more disciplining kids? Mexican poor-waged hotel maid getting to use a yacht or learjet as often as the filthy rich? WHOSE freedom? Which freedoms? Its all a big blur. It all depends upon where you're (forced to be) standing when you look for/at freedom.
Anyhoo, as "they" say, opinions are like stinkholes, everyone has one, and most... stink. So does mine. :) Bestest! Wingy - Anti-cap.
Walt, I was disappointed with your definitions for this reason: you said the definitions would be extreme, and I found the definition of my position, conservative, to be so. However, I didn't find the definition of your position to be extreme.
If using extreme definition for conservativism (morally statist), you should use an extreme definition for libertarian (little to no significant difference from an anarchist). If using a moderate/representative definition for libertarian (such as you did), you should use a moderate/representative definition for conservativism.
An definition for libertarian matching the other definitions you have would be: tends to give a nod and a wink to liberty while placing emphasis on tiny government, which allows people and organizations to bully one another with relatively few checks or consequences. The strong have freedom from rules and government intrusion but the weak have little freedom.Foreign policy is strictly isolationist, with no consideration given to those who lack freedom and personal determination, and little attention paid to growing threats from around the world. The goal is that the individual be largely left alone to make his own way in the world.
That will likely offend you, which means it has succeeded in being an extremist view (as you stated was your intention) and being similar in tone to the other descriptions.
If you decide to rewrite to give moderate or representative views of the various positions, I can help you out as regards mine. Short version is:
Conservative: Supports a relatively small government and relatively open market. Government's primary domestic function is to prevent people and organizations from harming one another. Some limited social safety net support may be warranted, particularly as regards those who lack the ability to care for themselves. Borders should be secured from unauthorizedentry, but visas should be available for workers, students, and tourists. Terrorists should be carefully screened out. Government's foreign policy role is first a strong defense (which necessitates having the means for a strong offense) and a generally gracious policy tone, but should speak (and act, if both the necessary exists and the opportunity and means are available) sternly towards those responsible for human rights abuses.The goal is freedom and self-determination, first at home and then promoted abroad.
Explanatory version: The conservative supports a relatively small government and relatively open market. Government's primary domestic function is to prevent people and organizations from harming one another. This protection includes criminalizing non-disputed crimes such as murder, theft, kidnapping, and the like, as well as certain disputed crimes such as drug dealing, murder of the unborn, and the like. It also includes some anti-trust regulation which should apply both to corporations and to unions, and to government whenever it performs an activity which is not essentially unique to government (offering student loans, for instance). Checks, balances, and limitations of government must be maintained to prevent government abuse of people and organizations.
Free speech should permitted unless harmful (promotes terrorism, was produced by harming someone, or depicts or encourages harming someone). Religious speech should generally not be excluded from the public square [unless that particular instance of speech advocates, say, destroying the infidels].
When people are truly unable to care for themselves, assistance should be available. It is debatable within the group whether this should come solely from private charities, or from state and local governments as well (food stamps, disability assistance, etc.). The latter group reasons that, while strictly private programs would theoretically be preferable, it's not certain they can achieve the same level of coverage as a public program.
The definition of marriage should not change, and the state has an interest in encouraging stable [heterosexual] marriages (because they bring social stability and establish the best conditions for raising young citizens). However, it cannot penalize people who choose to do otherwise or dictate what is done by freely-consenting adults in private. Work, housing, and such opportunities should not be different for people based on their choices, ethnicity, gender, or other status, unless the organization is of voluntary participation and is developed around clearly-articulated moral or religious ideas (for instance, it is not criminal for some denominations to have exclusionary requirements for their leaders, so long as that is applied only internally within the church, and is not based on race or disability).
Borders should be secured from unauthorized entry, but visas should be available for workers, students, and tourists. The current status of illegal aliens is a form of slavery, because people gain absolute power over them (as by threatening to turn them in to INS, or merely because the alien is hindered by his status from seeking law enforcement or judicial remedies). Granting amnesty would be a form of anarchy, dismissing the validity of law. Unauthorized aliens burden our social systems, because they can obtain certain social benefits (such as free emergency room care), yet they pay no taxes. Furthermore, terrorists (including drug dealers) slip in unnoticed and endanger our nation. Both for the benefit of the unauthorized workers and for the benefit of this nation, the situation of having people here unlawfully must end. We should instead secure the borders and grant more visas.
Government's foreign policy role is first a strong defense (which necessitates having the means for a strong offense) and a generally gracious policy tone, but should speak sternly to those responsible for human rights abuses. If it has the means and the opportunity, it can free people from their oppressive governments. [Just because we believe in freedom and self-determination, and largely enjoy that right, doesn't mean people in Sudan or Cuba prefer the oppressive conditions they suffer under. After all, we received assistance in our quest for self-determination from other nations, such as France.]
Sorry, I had an editing error. Short version of my position is:
Conservative: Supports a relatively small government and relatively open market. Government's primary domestic function is to prevent people and organizations from harming one another. Some limited social safety net support may be warranted, particularly as regards those who lack the ability to care for themselves. Borders should be secured from unauthorizedentry, but visas should be available for workers, students, and tourists. Terrorists should be carefully screened out. Government's foreign policy role is first a strong defense (which necessitates having the means for a strong offense) and a generally gracious policy tone, but should speak (and act, if both the necessity exists and the opportunity and means are available) sternly towards those responsible for human rights abuses.The goal is freedom and self-determination, first at home and then promoted abroad.
Posted By: Bruce Awishes
Date: 2010-07-09 06:57:52
To all of you....this idea of ..."just get the smartest guy in there and all will be perfect" is insane, to say the least. First, it is proven untrue. Look at Geitner...the smartest liberal in the world...and even he admits we are in for tough times.
Second, humans evolve through collective thought processes. You don't appoint one guy to make all the rules. It's been tried through history and failed. (Japan, late 1800's thru 1945; USSR with Stalin; China with Mao;...the list goes on)
And thirdly...would you stop listening to actors and artists. Why does the press treat these people like they are experts on "stuff". They ain't. They may be good at their craft...but most, like other humans roving the planet, are ignorant of other things.
@Emy, I have to agree with you. Thiessen's definitions for the traditional left/right positions were somewhat colored by his own views. Then again, I'm not sure how he could have avoided that.. maybe by having a self-defined person from each group write the explanation for each one, so that they all include rationales and have similar tones.
@Blato, I found your insight helpful as well. As a self defined Conservative (though I placed Libertarian on the survey), I found some of the question wordings quite stereotypical and betraying a lack of understanding for the "Conservative" position. Also, I was troubled by a lack of moderate options for the questions. I placed where I did because oftentimes the "Conservative" answer was WAY too conservative (again - stereotypically so), forcing me to pick the "Liberal" option even though my views are in the middle - or because the moderate answer was not there and I had to pick the really really Conservative one over the really really Liberal one.
@Mr. Thiessen, I like your website. I do understand that developing a perfect survey is impossible, and I appreciate what you're trying to do. I hope you'll take my suggestions in the respectful light I intend them, and best of luck in your continued maintenance of the site.
God Bless y'all,
-Matt
I just totally gave myself away as a Texan there haha...
I landed at the very top of the libertarian section. true religionI would have been surprised if it was anywhere else. Support Ron Paul! It's disgusting how Republicans never mention his name when asked who would be good for the country in the party. They shut him out which shows they want govt. control also for their agendas. I want people to have their own beliefs even if they disagree with me. But as soon as you promote the govt. putting a gun to my head to agree with you, then we have a problem! I urge people to read Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" speech. The entire speech. true religion jeans If it doesn't emotionally move you, then may you live somewhere else in the bowls of tyranny! I am one of the New Sons of Liberty!
I am somewhat insulted by the definition of Centrist, "somewhere in the middle of all of the above." That is both where I landed and what I am. Pragmatic is another term we like to use. We strongly believe that every situation has a unique answer. That the answers don't come from ideology, they come from reason. That you don't go into a debate with the answer set in stone. Listening is the most important part of good decision making.
Government should do the things that are help build a healthy society but don't generate a profit so nobody would do it as a business. That when we believe that we should do something as a community, we should all pay our share up front. And we should receive value and a good long term return for our money. That Government jobs are good middle class jobs and most Government employees are hard workers. We like our parks, highways, Internet (that was a Government invention), and schools. A strong country means more than an overpriced military. That standing up for democratic rule is healthier in the long run economically than standing up for short term gains. That cooperation pays better than conflict.
It is nice to see that someone has put at least two axises on a chart instead of the left right straight line. But the four should be in the middle. It is we Centrists that live outside of the box. We are the one that truly believe in individuals, because we live as individuals. You know, Independent!
In general I agree with your definitions; the survey placed me in the lower right quadrant of the libertarian square, probably because of my position on "grandfathering" current and near-future recipients of Social Security. Overall, I think that I lean more toward the true conservative side than that, but I don't believe we can just yank Social Security out from under people, at least not without some preparation to allow for their continued support. They should not be left "high and dry" with no source of income. That would be unconscionable. Whatever one thinks of Social Security, it is something we have lived with for nearly 80 years, and just as a drug addict often has to be weaned off some drugs, this country will have to be weaned off Social Security. That's the moral thing to do.
Posted By: Edu Montesanti
Date: 2011-05-11 04:14:03
Sad because in Brazil, my country, there are few cultured and democratic people like you, Walt. I think that people like you and Jake Towne, are the last US hope
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
