CONSERVATIVE is based on the word "Conserve". Aren't you Liberals in favour of CONSERVation too?!?

Question

CONSERVATIVES decry changes in society that do more harm than good. Liberals could agree with that. We all enjoy our FREEdom, don't we? But what about freedom of business to OWN technology?

LIBERALS are less about conserving the past values, and are in favour changing institutions that need to be reformed. I have a very conservative (Republican) wife, but she is in favour of changing institutions that need to be reformed too.

The question may be WHAT do you conserve and what needs to be reformed???

Answer 1

You are an obvious troll, but I'll bite.

I think most liberals (myself included) are very conservative, but open to new ideas.  For instance, we're fiscally conservative.  Republicans used to chastise Democrats for being "tax and spend" but you know what?  That was done in the right order - collect the money - THEN spend it.  What we're doing now is racking up the national credit cards, and it's not conservative at all - it's reckless.    That's nuts.  It won't work at home, and it won't work at a national level.

We're conservative in national affairs.  We think we should keep to our own, and CONSERVE our resources (military, defense) for when we NEED THEM, not blow them on some lark that has nothing to do with national defense, like, say, Iraq, which wasn't a problem until we stupidly went in there.

We think we should CONSERVE our youth - not send them out to be blown up, and in fact, try to educate them.  We think we should CONSERVE our people, with decent health care and stem cell research to help those who can't get around.  

In general, we believe in personal freedom and conservation of general assets that will benefit the common good.

Answer 2

You've stumbled on the fact that the words liberal and conservative are pretty much useless!

Answer 3

I am a conservative who recycles, helps plant trees and drives a hybrid car.  The problem with society today is the entitlement mentality.  People think they are entitled to certain things.  Most of these people are poor, have very little education and expect a handout to help compensate their lifestyle.  I make a six figure salary.  I have worked very hard, sacrificed a lot of time and effort in order to get where I am today.  I had a goal and I didn't let anything keep me from achieving it.  Liberals believe that my hard work somehow translates into giving more to the less fortunate.  I disagree.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of government programs, both at the state and federal levels, that grant those "less fortunate" a chance to make a better life.  They are just too lazy to go after it because it requires effort.  They enjoy their welfare checks too much.  

New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was a "shining" example of the welfare state of this country.  People down there expected the government to come and rescue them.  You see what happened.  The government, which they thought was taking care of them, expected them to heed the warning of evacuation and leave.  They did not, but blame the government for their fate.  They blame Bush for not calling in the national guard, not knowing that the national guard is a STATE run militia.  The liberal governor of the state should be held responsible for that.  Thousands of buses that could have been used to help evacuate those people were left, courtesy of the city's government.  The liberal mayor of the city should be held responsible for that.  

And while Bush and the rest of the conservatives continue to try to make this a better place to live, liberals continue to bash him, rather than coming up with viable solutions to problems we still have.  They continue to focus on trying to win the White House, not making our lives better.  The last time I checked, they work for the people of this nation, not the other way around.  They should stop focusing on the man and concentrate their efforts on solving this nation's woes.

Answer 4

One thing that drastically needs to be conserved as much as people want to disagree or not think about it is the environment. Apparently people are forgetting simple knowledge that trees take in carbon dioxide and put out oxygen, ya know we need to breath to live, and trees around the world are drastically being cut down.

Bush turned over millions of acres since he has been in office to be allowed to be bought and developed by private investors, that were previously under protection during the time Clinton was in.

Answer 5

It's the job of Liberals to push for Social Betterment and for Conservatives to Protect what has been proven to work. It ain't Progress unless it really is an improvement and the vigourous debate of the Democratic process tends to weed out the dumb ideas and advance the good ones. Doesn't always work, but for the past 224 years it works better than anything else people have tried.

Ever since the McCarthy Era, there's been an accelerating trend toward a reversal of roles.  Under Bush it's been the PseudoCons pushing the Radical Ideas, the Cons trying to preserve the balance, the Liberals fighting for Traditonal American Values, Fiscal Responsibility and the kind of Family values that don't have to do with what's on TV or who should be allowed to be a family, with the "Politically Correct" Pseudolibs trying to undermine everyone. Pseudolibs are the one group who haven't changed roles.

The trouble is, the factions were better at their old roles they they are at the new ones and that's why everything is screwed up right now.

Answer 6

You sound pretty frustrated, friend.

Here's the difference in perspective, not to argue, but so that you can see the reason why there is arguement:

We liberals see your version of conservation as

at all costs 'resistance to any form of change' and 'strict adherence to written dogma'.  Often we see your side as trying one (IF one) type of change which may fail and then you decide that if that one form of change failed, all will.

We see change as wholesale options to benefit big groups (majorities like the middle class, environmentalists, union workers, national and international populations, etc.)  Admittedly, in this we tend to be a little more idealistic than pragmatic.  We inherently see change and experiment in central dogma (the Bible, the Constitution, etc.) and see the world through a scientific approach of trial and error.

In other words, to bottom line it; all too often Conservatives want to change nothing (except perhaps the things that will benefit themselves) and Liberals want to change everything (especially the things that involve minorites or special interest groups which just happen to be the things that Conservatives like most; ie guns, religious-related issues, taxes of the rich, beneficial business laws, etc).

Answer 7

Very well put question.

I would say that components (such as money making incentives) that hinders beneficial development for humans and that keeps beneficial development from taking place should be removed. I think that if some big company makes profits by actions that aren't beneficial for humans in their community, or for humans in general, and factors that are hindering the development of such companies/technologies that are, they, or their incentives, should be removed.

Answer 8

Nice question! hypofocus said it best. Politics is local, as the cliche' goes. It's the difference between catholic and Catholic.