Conservatives/Liberals Hardwired Differently

[Tyler9000]

I thought of that, except after the revolution it always seems to be conservatives that have power. Stalin was far from a liberal.

That's exactly how political cycles work. Liberal minorities seize power from the establishment based on historical oppression, then become quite conservative by comparison when faced with the prospect of future reform that would undo their power.

[Chad]

I would argue that any dictator like Stalin eventually gets rid of all of the intellectuals. A liberal will get rid of the conservatives to attain power, and then gets rid of the remaining intellectuals. A conservative starts with the liberals, but eventually gets to the conservative ones, too.

As a dictator how can you meet the liberal definition?

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.

Being a dictator completely invalidates the definition, as there is no liberty. They can call themselves liberal, but it's not really true. A lot of this is semantics, but it's interesting to me.

Academia can be militant, Chad. It's a shame because it fuels the suspicion of the 'intellectual elite' that jacob mentioned in the other thread.

I understand that, but it's not really comparable to the world events. He didn't even fail you. Not that his tirade was appropriate or shouldn't have gotten him disciplined in some manner.

Also, let's not pretend that religious people face more discrimination than atheists.

"A few months after retiring, former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) also announced his nonbeliever status, a declaration he made more than 25 years after coming out as the first openly gay member of Congress."

I'm not a big Frank fan, so that's not my point. But, it was easier for him to be gay than an atheist.

Though, I do think it would be much easier to find atheist leaders who committed mass murder than it is to find liberal leaders who committed mass murder. Stalin and Mao are prime examples. Though, Stalin was very superstitious, so I'm not sure what he actually believed.

[Chad]

I thought of that, except after the revolution it always seems to be conservatives that have power. Stalin was far from a liberal.

That's exactly how political cycles work. Liberal minorities seize power from the establishment based on historical oppression, then become quite conservative by comparison when faced with the prospect of future reform that would undo their power.

That's kind of my question behind the discussion. Are they really liberal then? When they get the opportunity to define the government they become conservative.

[jacob]

It's a matter of cyclic timing. Conservative simply means preserving the current ways. Once you changed the world to your liking (a liberal impulse) you want to preserve it that way (a conservative impulse).

[Tyler9000]

That's kind of my question behind the discussion. Are they really liberal then? When they get the opportunity to define the government they become conservative.

Liberal/conservative is generally relative, not absolute. IMHO, one should not confuse the political labels with good/bad. That's where we get into intellectual trouble, and why studies looking for genetic justifications for the opinions of swaths of the population bother me.

[jennypenny]

I would argue that any dictator like Stalin eventually gets rid of all of the intellectuals. A liberal will get rid of the conservatives to attain power, and then gets rid of the remaining intellectuals. A conservative starts with the liberals, but eventually gets to the conservative ones, too.

As a dictator how can you meet the liberal definition?

The don't start out as dictators. They all ride into town on an ~ism; some from the right, some from the left.

[Chad]

I would argue that any dictator like Stalin eventually gets rid of all of the intellectuals. A liberal will get rid of the conservatives to attain power, and then gets rid of the remaining intellectuals. A conservative starts with the liberals, but eventually gets to the conservative ones, too.

As a dictator how can you meet the liberal definition?

The don't start out as dictators. They all ride into town on an ~ism; some from the right, some from the left.

True, but you don't necessarily break the definition of a conservative by being a dictator. You do as a liberal.

And, by the way, this is really just a mental exercise for me, as I'm not suggesting a liberal can't go bad. They obviously can.

[Dragline]

While the research is of some interest, I don't find the liberal/conservative distinction that meaningful in a positive or negative context.

What matters more to me is if the particular leaders are pragmatic/results oriented (positive) or utopian/process or theory oriented (negative). One they start saying "All we need to do is follow my magic social science theory and rid ourselves of [fill in your so-and-sos] and we'll solve all our problems", its time to run for the hills.

[Tyler9000]

True, but you don't necessarily break the definition of a conservative by being a dictator. You do as a liberal.

I guess it depends on how you define "liberal".

The number of Che Guerva T-shirts in San Francisco is comical, Michael Moore made a pretty popular movie about the greatness of Cuban healthcare under Castro, and Chavez had a ton of fans among the left for how he stuck it to US oil companies.

Overly political people on both sides of the spectrum tend to idolize power in those who share their views.

[Chad]

True, but you don't necessarily break the definition of a conservative by being a dictator. You do as a liberal.

I guess it depends on how you define "liberal".

The number of Che Guerva T-shirts in San Francisco is comical, Michael Moore made a pretty popular movie about the greatness of Cuban healthcare under Castro, and Chavez had a ton of fans among the left for how he stuck it to US oil companies.

Overly political people on both sides of the spectrum tend to idolize power in those who share their views.

I agree. Neither of those adequately meet the definition of liberal.

[henrik]

Most countries' political landscape is more varied than the liberal vs conservative camps that Americans and Brits consider normal. Does that mean there are genetic-psychological-whatever dispositions toward being Anglo-American?

[Devil's Advocate]

The don't start out as dictators. They all ride into town on an ~ism; some from the right, some from the left.

Neither the longer "early retirement extreme" or the acronym "ERE" contains those three grisly letters, "ism". For better or for worse, then, no goose-stepping EREers in homemade boots.

[jacob]

Ha! What about Mustachianism? ;-P

[IlliniDave]

Ha! What about Mustachianism? ;-P

Badassitism.

[workathome]

Ha! What about Mustachianism? ;-P

Badassitism.

.......................................................................

[tommytebco]

I've come to believe that a parliamentarian type of government would be more desirable than the two party gridlock we have now. It would eliminate the gridlock, since fringe/ minor views could win a seat at the table. All or nothing tactics would bring a vote of confidence.
It took "forever" for me to evolve to this viewpoint, because of the slant against the French System given by the American Press.

[Felix]

I'm not sure conservatives want no change. Removing the goverment-provided social safety net is quite a change. Did liberals become conservative and vice versa with the New Deal?

Is there a correlation between MBTI-type and political affiliation?

[jennypenny]

Is there a correlation between MBTI-type and political affiliation?

Apparently, not with INTj's.

[workathome]

Could end up something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... viet_Union

[Felix]

Could end up something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... viet_Union

Yes, that's the scary direction this could take.