How can you tell whether an idea is liberal or conservative?

[Darth Wong]

Seems like an easy question, but it's not as easy as you might think. Of course, in terms of sexuality, it's dead-simple: conservatives think Queen Victoria was right, and liberals think sex is a playground.

But what about social policy? Apparently, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and anti-smoking laws are "liberal", while wire-tapping laws, "three strikes and you're out" laws, and torture permissions are "conservative".

So what makes those ideas "liberal"? The fact that they are safety-oriented? Those "conservative" ideas are safety-oriented as well; conservatives have in fact made "protecting the nation" their bailiwick. Is it because they represent government intrusion into private life? Nope, that applies to both as well.

What is the litmus test for determining whether an idea is "liberal" or "conservative"?

[Cairber]

I think one of the hallmarks of conservative thinking is the "quick fix" with the future effects of said fix not being considered or pushed to the side. I think you see this in the three social policy areas you mentioned on the conservative side. The effects on future liberties, the treatment of our own soldiers in the future, and the effects on the prison system and justice are all ignored in favor of a quick fix that feeds that kind of mentality Americans have.

Though I can't see this bit being the overall litmus test since it doesn't always work (esp with some of the conservative ideas on "state's rights"). But you could argue that a lot of the incidents where you get conservatives playing the "state rights" card are just a way for them to push the issue aside and not really address it. Notice that John McCain is running on a "abortion decision is a state right" platform; this way, he doesn't really have to deal with the question.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I find liberal is often progressive and actually rational, while conservative is, shock horror, conservative in nature. Meaning, they tend to stick with established ideals that may be totally arbitrary and later found to be unhelpful.

[Superman]

I always thought the same about abortion. If abortion is outlawed, isn't this a case of government intruding into one's life and saying what someone can't do? Aren't conservatives against this? I wonder how many non-religious type conservatives are against a person's right to abortion.

[Rye]

If it's evil, it's usually conservative?

The conservative spin is probably: Liberals want to stop you having fun, conservatives want to stop the baddies by any means necessary. Liberal constricting laws are aimed at "us" and conservative ones are aimed at "them".

[Kuja]

But what about social policy? Apparently, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and anti-smoking laws are "liberal", while wire-tapping laws, "three strikes and you're out" laws, and torture permissions are "conservative".

With these six as an example, the simple difference between a liberal idea and a conservative one is that liberal ideas are about protecting the innocent. Conservative ideas are about punishing the guilty. To boil it down to one sentence: the difference between action and reaction.

[Big Orange]

I find it odd that to conserve (that is, to save) is applied to a American political mindset that is destroying the world economy, destroying foreign countries, and destroying communities (rather than actually conserving them).

[Zixinus]

Hardly a litmus test, but I find that conservatives have a typical approach. Do this because to twuart evil. Liberals say, Do this because of this.

Conservatives tend to try to be personal.

[Drooling Iguana]

Liberal ideas tend to be primarily about helping people, although their detractors would argue that they hurt people in the long run. Conservative ideas tend to be primarily about hurting people, although their supporters would argue that they help people in the long run.

[Patrick Degan]

If the thinking is outmoded, stupid, or simply batshit insane, it's usually conservative.

[Darth Wong]

The jabs are all well and good, but I consider it something of a challenge. Is it possible to devise an actual test which could predict whether an idea would be considered "liberal" or "conservative" with reasonable accuracy?

[Wicked Pilot]

Conservative is generally the way it's been done in the past, liberal is a new way of looking at the problem. In the US a socialist would be considered liberal, in North Korea an open market proponent would earn the same label.

[Eris]

Well, there is no one good way to peg one or the other, since they've changed from principle philosophy into, frankly, brand names. Modern conservatives and liberals, in the US, are those that agree with the Republican and Democratic parties respectively.

Now, classically speaking liberals are those who espouse liberty as the guiding principle of just governance. Now, the specifics will vary. A modern Randian is an extreme classical liberal, like the free market hawks of the 19th Century, as their guiding principle is maximising liberty to the most extreme degree possible. A more modern and sane liberalism would be the Rawlsian style social liberals, who espouse the principle that just governance stemmed from seeing the most expansive set of liberties guaranteed to the populace while ensuring the general safety and equitable treatment.

Classic conservatives, by contrast, were those who reacted against the liberals. Generally speaking, conservatives are those who are guided not by liberty as the fundamental principle but rather tradition of one kind or another.

Now, by this definition most people these days are liberals, or claim to be. The Enlightenment was successful that way. But if we ignore what people claim to be, I would say that a liberal policy is one that attempts to preserve liberty while ensuring the fair and equitable treatment, while conservative policies are those that appeal to how things have been done in the past as justification in itself for continuing doing so.

There are a number of both non-liberal and non-conservative positions, but I'll ignore them here.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The terms are meaningless at this point without a second qualifier. Fiscal or social?
Fiscal and social conservative ideas are often at odds. Abortion would be a prime example.
Gay rights an other.
Adam Smith and Jerry Fallwell being lumped together seems a stretch.
The liberal consevative false spectrum is to blame.
There are a minimum of TWO axis to this graph.
There is an overlap of fiscal and social in odd area on both "sides" of the spectrum.
Link 1

Link 2

[Durandal]

You're missing the point. Mike is interested in devising a test to predict how media pundits would classify an idea, not how intelligent, reasonable people would.

[Morilore]

You're missing the point. Mike is interested in devising a test to predict how media pundits would classify an idea, not how intelligent, reasonable people would.

Would not the most reliable test of such an outcome be to see whether a Democrat or a Republican first proposed it? I know that's really stupid, but we're dealing in stupidity here, so...

Of course I would love to see counterexamples.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, Durandal's got the right idea. But I don't think it's as simple as saying that conservative ideas are Republican and liberal ideas are Democrat. There is a large and vocal movement in America which calls itself "conservative" and which embraces a variety of (often confusingly inconsistent) ideas. It doesn't matter whether they actually fit the dictionary definition of "conservative"; the question is whether we can devise a test to determine whether an idea is something that American "conservatives" would promote, as opposed to American "liberals".

[Durandal]

You're missing the point. Mike is interested in devising a test to predict how media pundits would classify an idea, not how intelligent, reasonable people would.

Would not the most reliable test of such an outcome be to see whether a Democrat or a Republican first proposed it? I know that's really stupid, but we're dealing in stupidity here, so...

Of course I would love to see counterexamples.

That wouldn't work though, because there are lots of proposals from both sides that never get slapped with a label. If a Democrat proposes an idea, your system would automatically predict that that idea would be characterized as "liberal" by media pundits, when it may not even register on their radar.

What Mike's getting at is more than just party line stuff. It has to do with what types of ideas tend to draw enough attention from the other side to label them as "liberal" or "conservative", for example. A system to predict this kind of thing would not only have to predict which bucket the idea would fall into, but it would also have to predict which ideas would even fall into any bucket instead of just being ignored.

[Darth Raptor]

With these six as an example, the simple difference between a liberal idea and a conservative one is that liberal ideas are about protecting the innocent. Conservative ideas are about punishing the guilty. To boil it down to one sentence: the difference between action and reaction.

This is an excellent observation, and I think it can work for economic issues too with some slight modification. While it might not appear to apply on the surface (more like protecting the guilty, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?), it does when you realize that individuals are no longer the focus when you enter the realm of economics.

On the economic axis, liberals are about distributing wealth and conservatives are about generating it. Corporate bailouts and deregulation are reactionary moves to sustain or protect the economy. Social welfare and progressive initiatives are actions to utilize the economy. While the guilty/innocent thing no longer applies, the action/reaction part does. I think we have a winner here.

[Glocksman]

Such a test may be possible, but I'm not sure it'd be 100% accurate.
Let's take my personal hobby horse of gun control.

What makes pro gun control 'liberal' and what makes anti gun control 'conservative'?
Personal responsibility would probably be the answer from a doctrinaire conservative.
But ask that same conservative his opinions about legalizing prostitution or 'soft' drugs such as pot, and he'd most likely do a 180 from the personal responsibility stance and talk about 'detrimental effects to society'.

Small 'l' libertarian leaning 'conservatives' might answer different, but that only shows there's no more unity among conservatives than there is among liberals of different stripes.

The modern Republican party built its success in being able to paper over the (often substantial) differences between conservatives of varying stripes, but GWB's constant fuckups and devotion to neocon ideology despite real world failures is fraying the paper.

[Darth Wong]

You can quibble about what a "proper" conservative is if you want, but the fact remains that there is a huge movement in the United States which identifies itself as "conservative", which doesn't hash out its ideas on Internet forums like this one, and which gathers around water coolers in workplaces around the country to talk about how stupid those damned liberulz are. And it seems to me that they're pretty consistent about what they believe; the trick is to figure out how to test an idea to see whether these people would embrace it, ignore it, or classify it as "liberal", since it is the conservatives in the US who seem to define the political classifications of everyone else.

[Glocksman]

You can quibble about what a "proper" conservative is if you want, but the fact remains that there is a huge movement in the United States which identifies itself as "conservative", which doesn't hash out its ideas on Internet forums like this one, and which gathers around water coolers in workplaces around the country to talk about how stupid those damned liberulz are.

Sure, and when pressed most of them can't even define the term beyond the 'national security', 'family values', and 'free enterprise' ideological pablum dispensed by the likes of Rush and/or their favorite right wing preacher.

I'm not trying to define a 'proper' conservative.
What I am saying is that conservatism itself in the US is a mess of often what are on the surface contradictory stances and has no overall ideology that I can see beyond that of 'liberals are bad'.

Unless you count selfishness (or being more polite, self interest) as an ideology, of course.
I can see that as a common thread.

[Darth Wong]

What I am saying is that conservatism itself in the US is a mess of often what are on the surface contradictory stances and has no overall ideology that I can see beyond that of 'liberals are bad'.

Which doesn't really help us determine what they would consider "liberal".

Unless you count selfishness (or being more polite, self interest) as an ideology, of course.

I can see that as a common thread.

But large parts of the conservative platform seem to have nothing to do with the welfare of the people promoting it. When middle-class people insist that the extra estate tax on $100 million estates must be abolished, there is no discernible self-interest. When people rage against abortion or gay marriage, there is no discernible self-interest. When people screech about flag-burning, there is no discernible self-interest.

[Morilore]

Well, of the examples raised in the OP, a common thread behind them is the protection of people from their own or others' stupidity, whereas the conservative ones focus directly on punishing or preventing evildoers from attacking the country. Both groups argue that they are protecting people and both interfere with people's lives, but the force of the liberal ones is directed at common citizens, "us," whose behavior is regulated for the good of others, whereas the conservative ones at least ostensibly direct their force at "them:" wire-tapping laws are supposed to make it easier to catch criminals and terrorists, "three strikes" laws are supposed to punish and deter criminals, and torture is supposedly used only on evildoers bent on deliberately harming others.

One might consider conservative and liberal approach to voting issues in the same light: a person concerned with making sure "we" get all our voting rights is a "liberal;" a person concerned with preventing "them" from abusing the system through vote fraud is a "conservative." Same goes for social welfare programs: one who argues that the natural rise and fall of individual fortunes in the free market should be tempered by regulation to protect the unfortunate among "us" from disaster is called a liberal, and those who fear that such systems lead to abuse by the unscrupulous or are a cover for "those" evildoers bent on installing socialist dictatorship are called conservatives, and those people may tend to adopt the attitude that the poor deserve their fate because they were not hardworking enough: the poor are "them." Or consider affirmative action: liberals argue that the behavior of schools and places of employment should be regulated to ensure that minorities among "us" are not discriminated against, whereas conservatives are afraid that "they" are using this system to acquire an unfair advantage over "us." Even with gun control, the rhetoric used by advocates is not that gun hoarders are evil or malicious, but that the presence of guns is a danger, like the presence of cyanide in a medicine cabinet. "Liberals" seek laws to regulate the behavior of what is seen as "ordinary people" in order to protect others from inadvertent harm.

To flip the coin momentarily, although gay marriage touches on the easily-identified sexuality issue, it also is framed in issues of group identity: conservatives wish to pass laws banning "them" from maliciously destroying "our" sacred institution. They also use the argument that illegal immigration must be cracked down upon because "they" are "invading" "our" homeland. They advocate for military hawkishness because of the fear of foreign "thems." They fear that gun control laws are a pretext for "them" to impose tyranny on "us." Conservatives seek laws to punish or prevent evildoers from maliciously harming the group.

...whoosh. OK, now, lets get this over with: what about what I just wrote is bullshit?

[Glocksman]

That could be the Repubs being successful at convincing people that the 'wedge' issues (gays, guns, etc) are more important than their economic self interest, or in the case of the estate tax, convincing them that it may one day be them or their children affected by it.

God knows at one time I believed gun rights were more important than any other issue.
While I still think they're important, I've come to realize that there are other issues that are more important.

Like keeping a roof over my head or not dropping dead in the street from lack of affordable healthcare.
Or even the fact that our trade and budget deficits can't go on forever and that one day the bills will come due.
Which is more than GWB seems to realize.