these words are often used to insult, but if we look at their definitions:

conservative: 1 a : an adherent or advocate of political conservatism. b capitalized : a member or supporter of a conservative political party. 2 a : one who adheres to traditional methods or views. b : a cautious or discreet person.

liberal: a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts liberal education
b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded a liberal giver
b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way a liberal meal
c : ample, full



so conservative mindset wants to preserve what is established
and liberal mindset wants to be generous


Both are positive in my mind, unless or until there is TOO much of either.

one can be TOO stuck on rejecting ANY change
and one can be TOO stuck on changing EVERYTHING all the time


I would hope that most, regardless of their protests, fall in the middle, wanting to change some things but not others. I am glad there were liberal minds wanting to expand rights to include women and minorities. I am also glad there are conservative minds fighting to promote the traditional family and the rights to practice religion.


I only wonder why we make either word into some insult, when there can always be TOO much of a good thing, but the basic principles are virtuous(generosity and caution)


is it more tactics to keep people divided and fighting instead of finding common ground and improving?

Great post, msharmony.

Everyone is conservative in some way. Everyone is liberal in some way.

Having directly observed the evolution of the ANti-ism (my term) that has been very purposely conducted and encouraged during my lifetime, I would say the answer to this question is "yes, absolutely."

What I've seen happen in a variety of ways, is the same general process being used to try to win things for various interest groups.

Basically, there are three steps: declare the existence of a condemnable group; label it with a catchy title of YOUR choosing (not theirs), and then proceed to demand that this (actually non-existent) unified group be attacked and destroyed in one way or another. A key part of the stunt, is to insist that the label both CAUSES the members to be defective, and is pasted onto them because they hold one or more opinions you don't like.

It's a very child-like bit of vicious behavior that I saw first, on the playground at elementary school. Anyone else ever hear the term "cooties" when they were younger? Where I was, all girls were supposed to suffer from them BECAUSE they were girls. No one ever explained to me what cooties were, or why only all girls had them, only that I was not supposed to play with or be friends with any girls.

I remember one particular pivotal point in the late 1970's, while Ronald Reagan was running for President. He made a speech (several of them) in which he specified that the problem with Democrats wasn't that they were mistaken about anything they wanted, the problem with them was that they WERE LIBERALS. That ALL things liberal were to be condemned out of hand, and that all things conservative (by implication) should be adopted instead.

That was so appealing to a lot of people who felt as though they had been criticized on a social personal level for over a decade by self-righteous people demanding social change, that it carried Reagan to two terms in the White House, and became THE central rallying concept for the entire Republican Party.

The thing is, there was nothing factual involved with it. It was JUST a political labeling game, designed to wildly oversimplify choices for everyone, and to make them feel GOOD about refusing to think about the concerns of their opposition.

It was the same kind of thinking I also saw on the rebellious so-called "left" of those times as well. The idea that anyone over the age of thirty was inherently not to be trusted, was the exact same kind of propaganda. So was the idea that long hair made a male thoughtful and righteous, or that liking or disliking a particular rock star or kind of music, made a person a lunkhead or a genius.

Bottom line, what's inherently defective, is that thinking process. Deciding that you can choose a label to slap on other people, and then condemn them for having that label, has become commonplace, despite being rather obviously illogical to the point of insanity.

From what I see liberals are the ones wanting handout, not giving handouts. Conservatives are forced to give handouts and bitching every dime that is stolen from them.

A key part of the stunt, is to insist that the label both CAUSES the members to be defective, and is pasted onto them because they hold one or more opinions you don't like.


good call Igor ...

the definition of 'liberal' is actually generous, which would certainly describe people 'giving handouts'.

I guess it all depends upon the value one places on conformity.
It matters how much one hinges their 'worth' on approval.
How important it is to be ... "Right" in someone else's opinion.

Politically speaking, "liberalism" is rooted in the word "liberty". Reading up on political philosophy from the past several hundred years makes this very apparent. However, most of the masses have not studied philosophy. They take a more mainstream and less educated approach to the definition of liberalism.

True political liberalism means preserving the rights of the individual. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin. Crossing that boundary means sacrificing freedoms to those willing to bully others into submission. Failing to punish such transgressions equals state-sponsorship, furthering undermining and eroding personal liberties and, hence, freedom.

By comparison, political conservatism is more difficult to define. Being conservative is often equated to maintaining the status quo. But what if the status quo is fairly liberal to begin with? Then the line between liberalism and conservatism becomes blurred. But the truth is that political conservatism is really about minimalism. It takes a different approach to ensuring personal liberty.

For instance, consider a laissez faire economy. It's often embraced by conservatives. And yet, it's actually a concept borne of liberalism. It insists on minimalizing government interference in the free market. By contrast, liberalism insists on regulations to prevent individuals from fraud or unscrupulous business tactics. In other words, conservative believe the best way to protect personal liberty is to avoid government interference while liberals believe the best way to accomplish the same task is use regulation to prevent and punish abuses against individuals. This is what has given rise to our modern definitions of conservatism and liberalism -- not social programs or so-called "handouts".

In fact, handouts originated with a third school of thought: progressivism.

Often considered a conservative today, Teddy Roosevelt was actually a progressive. FDR, his cousin, idolized Teddy, emulating much of ideas. And yet, FDR is considered the epitome of liberalism. But Lenin and Hitler were also progressives, as difficult as it may be to believe. The differences lay in how they chose to approach progressivism. Socialism and Social Democracy were just two different branches of the progressivist movement at the start of the 20th century.

To label liberalism as the mother of government handouts is to be incorrect. Liberalism simply absorbed elements of Social Democracy in order broaden support among the masses. By doing so, it began representing the poor and the underprivileged against those with wealth and influence -- a concept taken from Marxism and Progressivism. Social Democracy was a very popular movement around the turn of the century. It is part of what began destabilizing Europe as Imperialism began to crack around the edges.

^^this is a well written, intelligent and insightful response to
to the OP...something not often seen in online chat-boards...

I have one question to ask, if you don't mind...

Are you the author of these words and did you type out what I'm
reading here..or..is this a copy & paste submission from another source ?

you can answer if you like, or not...i was just wondering about it...

Argo, those were my own words. I was a History major in college.

It's also overlooked that the Republican Party was once the liberal party, while the Democrats were the conservative party. That began changing after the American Civil War. From Reconstruction onward, the Republicans became increasingly linked with industrialists and tycoons. Given that and what happened to Stephen Douglas, it's rather amazing that the Democratic Party survived. The Democrats basically had to reinvent themselves in order to recreate a base of support.

Princess by definition and history, is viewed in a good way, but we often use it to describe someone who is spoiled. When talking about liberals and conservatives, most think about how they are viewed today. The definition and good things done by each party in the past won't get votes in the present elections.

Sadly, the few remaining authentic Republicans and Conservatives are being overshadowed by the Trumpicans.

It would be helpful if people understood the differences between those who are authentic Republicans and Conservatives and those who feign being Republicans and Conservatives.

For example . . .



Also, authentic Republicans and Conservatives don't find excuses to bash immigrants and minorities.

Alas, authentic Republicans and Conservatives are becoming few and far in between.

Actionlynx, thanks for the reply to my question, i appreciate that..

the point you bring up here, is also appreciated...i have run across
many people, including several here on M2, who are stuck in the "labels"
of politics insisting that the republican/conservatives of today
are of the same philosophy as they were in the days of Lincoln, when in
fact they are the opposite...*oh well*

OT: I am in agreement with Actionlynx statement, he said it better than I

as for a tactic used for division, I think yes, it is used by both parties
when a bill is introduced that has bi-partisan appeal, it seems the
lawmakers of today always add to the bill something of benefit that is
objectionable to the other side...kinda like if you want to take this
good medicine you'll have to also take some of our bad stuff too...
and often these additions have nothing to do with the original bill..imo

I feel that BOTH of those terms has been weaponized by the opposing party as a method to try to control,and manipulate people who don't understand the meanings of the words.

most people that read my posts on here would probably assume that I am strictly a liberal,but I also have some conservative principles that I believe in,especially when it comes to my finances,but just because I belie3ve in being financially conservative in some ways,that doesn't mean that I cant also believe in being socially liberal,or believe in helping the people that need help,because I believe that when a person is TRULY successful in life,then they can afford to be generous,and charitable to the less fortunate,because having MORE than you need,and not being willing to help out the less fortunate doesn't mean that you are successful..it just means that you are greedy,and self centered,and if you are so short sighted that you cant see beyond a dollar sign,then I DEFINITELY don't consider someone like that a success in ANY way,because you are not making the world a better place in ANY way...you are just taking up space and PROBABLY doing things that makes the world a WORSE place in some way.

so,my thoughts are that ALL people are complicated beings who are multifaceted,and to just forget about letting people pigeonhole you into a single category for their own purposes,and agendas,and just be a good person!
[cuz,if you aren't being a GOOD person,then that means that...]